UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

OIKT    OK 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALS WORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
Accessions  No.  Ob  V 7 ZL.      Class  No. 


HERMENEUTICAL  MANUAL: 


OR, 


Jntrokt&m  is  %  fegcihal 


OF  THE 


SCRIPTURES  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


PATRICK  FAIRBAIRN,  D.  D., 

'// 
PRINCIPAL  AND  PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY  IN  THE  FREE  CHURCH  COLLEGE,  GLASGOW; 

AUTHOR  OF  "TYPOLOGY  OF  SCRIPTURE,"  ETC. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

SMITH,  ENGLISH  &  CO.,  NO.  40  N.  SIXTH  ST. 

NEW  YORK:    SHELDON,  BLAKE  MAN  &  CO. 

BOSTON:  GOULD  &  LINCOLN. 

1859. 


•\VM.  S.  YOUNG,  PR1NTKH. 


PKEFACE. 


THE  alternative  title  prefixed  to  this  volume  has 
been  assumed,  rather  than  the  simple  designation  of 
"  Hermeneutics  of  the  New  Testament,"  chiefly  for 
the  purpose  of  indicating,  that  a  certain  latitude  may 
be  expected  in  it,  both  in  regard  to  the  range  of  sub 
jects  discussed,  and  in  regard  to  the  measure  and 
method  of  treatment  respectively  applied  to  them. 
Works,  indeed,  could  readily  be  named,  bearing  the 
title  of  Hermeneutics,  which  have  taken  nearly  as  much 
license  in  both  respects,  as  I  need  to  vindicate  for  my 
self  in  connexion  with  the  present  publication.  But 
the  term  is  strictly  applicable  only  to  such  works  as 
unfold  the  principles  of  Interpretation,  and  give  to 
these  a  regular,  consecutive,  and  scientific  treatment. 
Of  this  sort  is  the  comparatively  recent  work  of  Cel- 
lerier  (Manuel  <$ Hermeneutique,  1852,)  which,  how 
ever  objectionable  in  respect  to  the  principles  it  occa 
sionally  enunciates,  is  one  of  the  most  systematic  and 
complete  in  form, — treating,  after  a  pretty  long  intro 
duction,  successively  of  the  Psychological  elements  and 
aspects  of  the  subject — the  Grammatical,  the  Histo 
rical,  the  Scriptuary  (or  more  peculiarly  Biblical,)  the 
Doctrinal.  In  this  province,  however,  it  is  possible  to 
sacrifice  to  completeness  or  perfection  of  form  greatly 
more  than  there  is  any  reasonable  prospect  of  gaining 


IV  PREFACE. 

by  it.  Higher  ends  have  here  to  be  aimed  at  than 
can  always  be  reached  by  a  rigid  adherence  to  scien 
tific  method,  or  a  close  regard  to  artistic  proportions. 
For,  in  a  field  so  various  as  that  of  New  Testament 
Scripture,  so  complicated,  touching  on  so  many  rela 
tions,  and  embracing  topics  so  diverse  alike  in  nature 
and  in  importance,  it  often  depends,  not  more,  perhaps 
even  less,  upon  the  hermeneutical  principles  adopted, 
than  upon  the  mode  of  applying  these  principles  to 
particular  cases,  and  passages  of  more  peculiar  diffi 
culty,  that  solid  footing  is  to  be  obtained,  and  satis 
factory  results  accomplished.  Accordingly,  in  those 
hermeneutical  works,  which  take  the  more  precise  and 
scientific  form,  there  is  always  what  appears  to  me 
much  needless  waste  in  one  direction,  and  ill-judged 
parsimony  in  another.  Not  a  little  space  is  occupied 
in  announcing,  or  illustrating  principles,  which  every 
one  knows  and  admits,  and  which  often  have  no  special 
bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  Scripture ;  while  many 
of  the  points  more  peculiarly  calling  for  elucidation 
are  summarily  disposed  of,  and  left  much  as  they  were 
found.  Even  when  the  simpler  elements  of  the  sub 
ject  are  correctly  enough  stated,  little  often  in  con 
nexion  with  them  is  properly  wrought  out ;  and  unless 
the  student  of  Scripture  is  content  to  take  all  on  the 
authority  of  his  Master,  he  will  often  feel  as  much  at 
a  loss  as  ever  in  respect  to  the  things  for  which  he 
more  especially  seeks  the  help  of  a  qualified  instructor. 
A  work  that  is  really  fitted  in  the  present  day  to 
serve  the  purpose  of  a  proper  guide-book,  must  un 
doubtedly  so  far  possess  a  scientific  character,  that  it 
shall  exhibit  an  acquaintance  with  the  several  branches 
of  learning  and  knowledge,  which  illustrate  the  lan 
guage  and  structure,  the  incidental  allusions,  and  the 


PREFACE.  V 

main  theme  of  the  sacred,  books,  and  apply  what  it 
may  thence  appropriate  in  an  orderly  and  judicious 
manner.  If  deficient  in  this,  it  fails  in  the  fundamen 
tals  of  the  subject.  But  it  should  be  allowed  to  move 
with  some  freedom  in  the  selection  of  its  topics,  and 
in  the  relative  care  and  consideration  that  it  expends 
upon  some  of  them,  as  compared  writh  others.  It  can 
not  otherwise  occupy,  in  a  serviceable  manner,  the 
intermediate  ground,  that  properly  belongs  to  it,  be 
tween  Lexicons,  Grammars,  Books  of  Antiquities,  etc., 
on  the  one  hand,  and  formal  commentaries  on  the 
other — turning,  as  it  should  do,  to  such  account  the 
materials  furnished  by  the  former  class  of  productions, 
as  may  aid  and  qualify  the  student  for  an  independent 
and  discriminating  use  of  the  latter.  This  is  the  pecu 
liar  province  and  object  of  a  Hermeneutical  work  ori 
Scripture,  and  that  will  always  come  practically  the 
nearest  to  the  mark,  which  is  the  best  fitted  to  place 
the  student  of  Scripture  in  the  position  now  indicated. 
In  works  composed  with  such  an  aim,  there  must 
ever  be  room  for  some  diversity  of  judgment  as  to  the 
subjects  that  should  be  brought  into  notice,  and  the 
degree  of  consideration  respectively  given  to  them. 
Different  persons  will  naturally  form  their  opinions 
from  somewhat  different  points  of  view;  and  what  will 
appear  to  some  the  fittest  arrangement  to  be  adopted, 
arid  the  points  most  in  need  of  investigation,  may  not 
always  be  regarded  in  exactly  the  same  light  by  others. 
In  this  respect  I  have  simply  to  say,  that  I  have  en 
deavoured  to  exercise  an  impartial  judgment,  influ 
enced,  no  doubt,  to  some  extent,  by  what  my  own 
experience,  coupled  with  the  general  tendencies  of  the 
age,  may  have  suggested  to  me  as  of  importance. 
Throughout  the  volume  prominence  has  been  given 

1* 


Vlil  PREFACE. 

to  be  virtually  the  same  with  a  conditional  ground 
for  the  other.  The  subject  of  discourse  with  me,  how 
ever,  was  prophecy,  simply  as  it  appears  in  the  writ 
ten  Word,  as  an  objective  communication  to  men.  In 
handling  this,  I,  no  doubt,  occasionally  spoke  of  the 
Divine  purposes ;  but  of  these,  as  is  evident  from  the 
whole  tenor  and  connexion  of  the  discourse,  not  as 
formed  in  the  mind  of  God,  and  determining-  with  in 
finite  and  unerring  wisdom  the  entire  system  of  the 
Divine  administration.  I  purposely  abstained  from 
entering  upon  this  higher  region,  and  confined  my 
attention  to  the  intimations  of  the  Divine  will  as  dis 
closed  in  the  prophetic  word — to  these  as  coming  into 
contact  with  men's  obligations  and  responsibilities — 
and  therefore,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  (for  they  dif 
fer  widely  in  the  extent  to  which  they  admit  it,) 
tinged  with  that  anthropomorphic  colouring,  which 
is  required  to  adapt  the  communications  of  Heaven  to 
the  thoughts  and  feelings,  the  ever  varying  states  and 
conditions  of  men.  The  subject,  as  presented  by  me, 
might  be  assigned  to  that  species  of  accommodation 
treated  of  in  Part  I.  sect.  5  of  this  volume,  according 
to  which,  while  the  form  given  to  spiritual  things 
bears  the  variable  type  of  what  is  human,  there  are 
not  the  less  realities  lying  behind,  fixed  and  immuta 
ble.  And  in  the  very  brief  and  general  allusion,  which 
was  made  to  the  Calvinistic  writers  of  a  former  age, 
nothing  more  was  designed  than  to  intimate,  in  the 
shortest  manner  possible — it  was  implied,  indeed, 
rather  than  intimated — that  the  distinction  (however 
expressed)  between  the  secret  and  the  revealed,  or 
between  the  absolute  decrees  and  the  conditional  an 
nouncements  of  God,  did  not,  to  my  view,  satisfactorily 
explicate  the  matter  at  issue.  I  thought  so  then,  and 


PREFACE.  IX 

I  think  so  still,  notwithstanding  the  advantage  I  have 
derived  from  the  instructions  of  so  learned  a  reviewer. 
To  divide,  as  he  and  his  authorities  do,  between  pro 
phecy,  considered  as  equivalent  to  Divine  decrees,  and 
prophecy,  as  involving  matter  of  commination  or  pro 
mise — the  former  absolute,  the  latter  conditional — 
does  not  satisfy  my  "exegetical  conscience/'  and  I  am 
afraid  never  can.  It  seems  to  me  to  introduce  an  arti 
ficial  distinction  into  the  prophetic  word,  which  is  not 
indicated  in  that  word  itself,  nor  admits  of  being  pro 
perly  drawn;  and  has  the  appearance,  at  least,  of  at 
tempting,  by  the  mere  adoption  of  a  particular  phrase 
ology,  or  by  arbitrarily  singling  out  portions  of  the 
same  prophetic  message,  to  tide  over  difficulties  in  in 
terpretation,  which  attach  to  the  subject  as  a  concrete 
whole,  as  an  objective  communication  addressed  to  the 
fears  or  the  hopes  of  mankind. 

But  this  is  not  the  place  for  minute  or  lengthened 
explanations  on  the  subject.  I  wished  merely,  in  a 
few  sentences,  to  deliver  my  protest  against  a  style  of 
criticism  which  I  hold  to  be  essentially  unfair,  and 
which,  if  similarly  applied  to  the  sacred  writers,  might 
readily  be  made  to  turn  one  half  of  them  against  an 
other.  It  is  not  likely  that  I  shall  refer  to  any  thing 
of  the  same  sort  in  future.  No  one,  who  reads  with  a 
candid  and  unbiassed  spirit  what  is  written  in  this,  or  in 
previous  productions  of  my  pen,  can  have  any  doubt 
that  the  great  principles  of  the  Reformed  churches  are 
therein  maintained  and  vindicated. 

The  Third  Part  of  the  volume,  which  is  devoted  to 
the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New, 
occupies  a  larger  space  than  I  could  have  wished. 
But  it  relates  to  a  branch  of  the  subject  which,  in  the 
present  day,  is  of  special  importance;  and  I  did  not 


X  PREFACE. 

see  how  my  main  object  could  be  served  without  taking 
it  up  in  detail,  and  examining  somewhat  carefully  the 
parts  which  are  more  peculiarly  attended  with  diffi 
culty.  For  those  who  would  study  the  subject  in  its 
relation  to  Typology,  and  would  trace  the  gradual 
evolution  of  the  meaning  of  Old  Testament  Scripture, 
through  the  application  of  particular  passages  to  the 
realities  of  the  Gospel,  I  take  leave  to  refer  to  .the 
first  volume  of  my  Typology,  and  especially  to  the 
Appendix  in  that  volume  on  this  particular  subject. 

P.  F. 

GLASGOW,  May,  1858. 


ERRATA. 


In  Page  19,  line  3G,  for  ty,  read  1%. 

"         35,  lines  10  and  11,  for  ti$  and  EIJ,  read 
"         35,  for  tVa,  read  L'va>. 

42,  line  29,  for  at^ua,  read  cu(ua. 
"         43,  line  2,  for  "W3,  read 
"         45,  line  23,  for  W3>,  read 
"         45,  line  26,  for  Drn ,  read 
"         59,  line  24,  for  a*  cov,  read  di' 
"       222,  line  31,  for  (v.  36,)  read  (iii.  36.) 

326,  line  19,  for  <xS»?»>,  read  a 
"       407,  line  22,  for  o,  read  St. 
"        411,  line  2,  for  drtofftMw,  read  a 
"       416,  line  22,  for  ar'wj,  read  avrotj. 
"       4°0,  line  11,  for  aStv,  read  a8rtv. 
11       421,  line  11,  for  "U,  read  »!&. 

431,  line  33,  for  foii^,  read  1*01; 


;  y  jBtfv^i  *   J 

'    ^%f|^F 

CONTENTS. 


PART  FIRST. 

DISCUSSION  OF  FACTS  AND  PRINCIPLES  BEARING  ON  THE  LANGUAGE 
AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE. 

Page. 

SECTION  FIRST. — The  Original  Language  of  the  New  Testament, 13 

SECTION  SECOND. — The  Characteristics  of  New  Testament  Greek,. 25 

Deviation  from  classic  purity,  p.  25-31 ;  its  basis  in  the  later  com 
mon  dialect,  p.  31-37;  its  Hebraistic  impress,  p.  37-45;  mis 
takes  made  respecting  this,  p.  45-54;  impress  derived  from 
new  relations  and  ideas,  p.  54-61. 

SECTION  THIRD. — Collateral  Sources  for  determining  the  Sense,  and 

explaining  the  Peculiarities  of  New  Testament  Scripture, 61 

Writings  of  Philo  and  Josephus,  p.  62-66;  Jewish  Rabbinical 
writings,  p.  66-70;  ancient  versions,  p.  70-74;  early  Fathers, 
p.  74-78;  Books  of  Antiquities,  etc.,  p.  78,  79. 

SECTION  FOURTH. — General  Rules  and  Principles  to  be  followed  in  the 

Interpretation  of  Particular  Words  and  Passages, 79 

SECTION  FIFTH. — Of  False  and  True  Accommodation ;  or  the  Influence 
that  should  be  allowed  to  Prevailing  Modes  of  Thought  in  fa 
shioning  the  views  and  utterances  of  the  Sacred  Writers, 106 

SECTION  SIXTH. — The  Respect  due  in  the  Interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament  to  the  Analogy  of  the  Faith,  or  from  one  part  of 
Scripture  to  another;  and  the  further  respect  to  be  had  to  the 
Religions  of  the  Ancient  World,  the  True  and  the  False, 121 

SECTION  SEVENTH. — The  Relation  of  the  Old  to  the  New  in  God's  Dis 
pensations  more  exactly  denned,  with  the  view  of  preventing 
mistaken  or  partial  Interpretations  of  such  portions  of  New 
Testament  Scripture  as  bear  on  it, ,. 139 

SECTION  EIGHTH. — On  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  Tropical  parts 

of  the  New  Testament, 157 

SECTION  NINTH. — The  Parables  of  Christ,  their  proper  Interpretation 

and  Treatment, 173 

SECTION  TENTH. — On  the  Subject  of  Parallelism  as  bearing  on  the 

Structure  and  Interpretation  of  New  Testament  Scripture, 189 


Xll  CONTENTS. 


PART  SECOND. 

DISSERTATIONS    ON   PARTICULAR   SUBJECTS   CONNECTED  WITH  THE 
EXEGESIS   OF   NEW   TESTAMENT    SCRIPTURE. 

Page. 
SECTION  FIRST.  —  The  Two  Genealogies  of  Christ,  given  respectively 

by  the  Evangelists  Matthew  and  Luke,  ..............................  205 

SECTION  SECOND.  —  The  designations  and  doctrine  of  Angels,  with  re 
ference  more  especially  to  the  Interpretation  of  passages  in 
New  Testament  Scripture,  ..............................................  225 

SECTION  THIRD.  —  On  the  Names  of  Christ  in  New  Testament  Scripture, 

and,  in  particular,  on  the  use  of  Xptoroj  and  TLOJ  tov  dvflpwrtov,  257 


SECTION  FOURTH.  —  On  the  Import  and  Use  of  certain  terms,  which 
express  an  antagonistic  relation  to  Christ's  Person  and  Autho 
rity,  •^£vSo8i8daxahot  ,  ^cvSorfpcxJ^T'ac.,  4'£vSo#pKjT'oj,  dj"ri^piOT'ojr...  275 


SECTION  FIFTH.  —  On  |3a7tft£w  and  its  cognates,  with  special  reference 

to  the  mode  of  administering  Baptism,  ..............................  294 

SECTION  SIXTH.  —  Import  and  Use  of  Hades,  #Sjjs,  in  Scripture,  .........  315 

SECTION  SEVENTH.  —  On  the  Import  and  Use  of  Siafl^jj  in  the  New  Tes 

tament,  ........  .  .............................................................  338 

SECTION  EIGHTH.  —  On  the  Import  of  certain  terms  employed  in  New 
Testament  Scripture  to  indicate  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  re 
novation  to  be  accomplished  through  the  Gospel,  juttcM/ota,  rta- 

352 


SECTION  NINTH.  —  On  the  use  of  Paraskeuc  and  Pasclia  in  St.  John's 
account  of  our  Lord's  last  sufferings;  and  the  question  there 
with  connected,  whether  our  Lord  kept  His  last  Passover  on  the 
same  day  as  the  Jews,  ..................................................  368 


PART  THIRD. 

THE  USE  MADE   OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE  IN  THE  WRITINGS 

OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

Page. 

SECTION  FIRST.— Quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New,  con 
sidered  in  respect  to  the  manner  of  citation, 393 

SECTION  SECOND. — Quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New,  con 
sidered  in  respect  to  the  mode  of  application, 456 

APPENDIX. — The  historical  circumstances  that  led  to  Christ's  birth  at 

Bethlehem — Cyrenius  and  the  taxing, 504 


PART  FIRST. 

DISCUSSION  OF  FACTS  AND   PRINCIPLES   BEARING  ON  THE   LAN 
GUAGE  AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE. 


SECTION  FIRST. 

THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

IN  the  more  exact  and  scientific  study  of  the  Sacred  Scrip 
tures,  the  first  object,  in  the  order  of  nature,  that  calls  for 
examination,  has  respect  to  the  state  of  the  original  records. 
The  possession  of  a  pure  text  is  an  indispensable  preliminary 
to  a  thoroughly  correct  and  trustworthy  exposition.  And,  as 
well  from  its  importance  as  from  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
investigations  belonging  to  it,  this  is  now  fitly  assigned  to  a 
distinct  branch  of  Biblical  study.  Next  to  it  in  order,  and 
certainly  not  inferior  in  importance,  is  a  correct  and  discri 
minating  acquaintance  with  the  original  language  of  Scripture, 
and  the  principles  that  should  guide  our  inquiries  into  its 
meaning  and  purport.  All  theology  that  is  really  sound,  and 
that  will  stand  the  test  of  time,  must  have  its  foundation  here. 
The  reformers,  to  their  credit,  clearly  perceived  this,  and  were 
hence  led  to  doctrinal  results,  which,  in  the  main,  never  have 
been,  and  never  can  be  displaced.  They  proceeded  on  the 
sound  maxim  of  Melancthon,  that  Scripture  cannot  be  under 
stood  theologically,  unless  it  has  been  already  understood  gram 
matically,  (Scriptura  non  potest  intelligi  theologice,  nisi  an- 
tea  sit  intellecta  grammatice.)  In  such  statements,  of  course, 
the  term  grammatical  must  be  taken  in  its  wider  sense,  as 
comprehending  all  that  is  necessary  to  a  just  discernment  of 
2 


14  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE 

the  import  and  spirit  of  the  original.  And  if  such  a  critical 
acquaintance  with  the  mere  language  of  sacred  Scripture  be 
but  one  element  of  success,  it  still  is  an  element  of  very  pe 
culiar  moment  to  the  -well-furnished  theologian ;  since  it  has 
respect  to  the  ultimate  source  of  all  that  is  sound  and  valua 
ble  in  theological  attainment. 

As  regards  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  with 
which  alone  we  have  properly  to  do  at  present,  it  is  only  the 
Greek  language  that  comes  directly  into  notice;  since  the 
whole  of  the  writings  that  compose  the  New  Testament  are 
found,  as  to  their  orfginal  form,  in  no  other  language  than 
that  of  the  Greek.  If  any  of  them  ever  existed  in  a  prior 
original,  it  no  longer  does  so.  Nor,  with  the  exception  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  has  it  ever 
been  imagined,  but  by  a  few  dreaming  and  speculative  minds, 
that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  appeared  originally  in 
any  other  language.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  now  also 
held  by  all  men  of  competent  learning  to  have  been  originally 
composed  in  Greek.  And  there  only  remains  the  gospel  of 
St.  Matthew  about  which  there  may  stili  be  some  room  for 
difference  of  opinion — though,  even  in  regard  to  it,  the  con 
viction  has  of  late  been  growing  in  favour  of  the  proper  origi 
nality  of  its  present  form,  which  was  certainly  in  current  use 
before  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age. 

Whence,  then,  did  this  predilection  for  the  Greek  arise? 
Were  our  Lord's  discourses,  and  the  writings  of  the  Evange 
lists,  as  well  as  of  the  apostles,  transmitted  to  us  in  Greek, 
because  that  was  the  current  language  of  the  place  and  time? 
Was  this  really  the  language  in  which  our  Lord  and  his  apostles 
usually  spoke?  So,  some  have  been  disposed  to  maintain ;  and 
though  it  is  a  question  rather  of  antiquarian  interest,  than  of 
any  vital  moment  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  it  is  en 
titled  to  some  consideration  at  our  hands.  It  has  also  a  certain 
bearing  on  the  dispute  respecting  the  original  language  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel.  Indeed,  it  was  chiefly  in  connexion  with 
this  more  special  question,  that  the  other  pressed  itself  on  the 
attention  of  Biblical  students.  Thus  Hug,  in  his  introduction 
to  the  New  Testament,  went  at  considerable  length  into  the 


OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  15 

investigation  of  the  subject,  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  the 
proper  originality  of  the  Greek  gospel  of  Matthew;  and  en 
deavoured  to  prove,  that  the  Greek  language  was  in  current 
use  throughout  Palestine  at  the  commencement  of  the  Chris 
tian  era — so  much  so,  that  the  people  generally  understood 
it,  that  our  Lord  himself  often  employed  it,  nor  had  His  evan 
gelists  and  apostles  any  proper  reason  for  resorting  to  another 
in  those  writings,  which  were  intended  for  circulation  in  Pa 
lestine  and  the  neighbouring  regions.  But  the  fullest  and, 
we  believe,  also  the  ablest  defence  of  this  view,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  treatise  of  an  Italian  Ecclesiastic,  Dominici  Diodati, 
entitled  De  Christo  Graece  loquente  exercitatio,  originally 
published  at  Naples  in  1767,  and  re-published  in  this  country 
not  many  years  since.  In  this  treatise  the  subject  is  discussed, 
partly  on  general  grounds,  as  on  its  own  account  interesting 
and  important  to  the  Biblical  student,  and  partly  also  with 
reference  to  its  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  original  lan 
guage  of  Matthew's  Gospel.  The  position  which  the  author 
labours  to  establish,  is,  that  "neither  Hebrew,  Syriac,  nor 
Latin,  was  the  vernacular  language  of  the  Saviour,  but  Greek." 
It  will  be  readily  understood,  on  the  other  side,  that  those  who 
held  the  contrary  opinion  respecting  Matthew's  Gospel — viz., 
that  it  was  originally  written  in  Hebrew  for  the  use  of  the 
Jewish  believers  in  Syria — were  naturally  led  to  controvert 
the  position,  that  Greek  was  generally  spoken  and  understood 
in  Palestine :  they  held,  that  not  Greek,  but  Aramaic,  a  sort 
of  broken  Hebrew,  was  the  only  language  in  general  use,  and 
that  also  commonly  employed  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  in 
their  public  discourses. 

Now,  on  a  question  of  this  kind,  it  is  not  difficult  for  an 
ingenious  theorist,  or  an  eager  disputant,  to  sort  and  apply 
some  scattered  notices  of  ancient  writers,  either  directly  or 
indirectly  bearing  on  the  subject,  in  such  a  way  as  to  give 
them  a  plausible  appearance,  and  compel  them  to  pay  tribute 
to  the  side  of  the  controversy  he  has  espoused.  But  there 
are  certain  great  principles  applicable  to  the  case  which,  with 
all  sober  and  impartial  minds,  must  go  far  to  settle  it,  and 
which  cannot  be  overthrown,  or  materially  modified  by  any 


16  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OF 

occasional  statements  or  fragmentary  notices  culled  out  of 
ancient  records.  It  is  found,  not  in  the  history  of  one  people, 
but  in  the  history  of  nations  generally,  that  there  is  nothing 
which  is  more  tenacious  of  its  grasp,  and  which  more  slowly 
yields  to  the  force  of  foreign  influences,  than  the  vernacular 
language  of  a  people.  "  Language  is  after  all  the  most  du 
rable  of  human  monuments.  Conquerors  may  overthrow  em 
pires  and  states;  earthquakes  may  swallow  up  cities;  time 
may  confound  all  things  besides: — but  the  winged  words,  in 
which  man  gives  utterance  to  his  feelings  and  thoughts,  often 
outlast  all  these  ravages,  and  preserve  the  memory  of  nations 
long  after  they  have  ceased  to  exist.  That  which  seems  the 
most  fragile,  the  most  variable,  the  most  evanescent  of  human 
attributes  or  possessions,  becomes  in  reality  the  most  perma 
nent,  the  most  indestructible.  If  no  longer  able  to  support 
an  independent  existence,  it  clings  to  and  coalesces  with  some 
more  recent  and  robust  dialect: — if  lost  in  one  form,  it  is  al 
most  certain  to  re-appear  in  another — exhibiting  amidst  all 
changes  and  disfigurations  incontestable  traces  of  its  origin. 
This  law  of  decay  and  reproduction,  of  fluctuation  yet  perma 
nence,  is  so  general,  that  it  is  principally  from  analytical  in 
quiries  into  the  origin,  composition,  and  affinities  of  language, 
that  we  derive  what  knowledge  we  possess  of  the  early  history 
and  fortunes  of  nations."1 

In  confirmation  of  this,  it  is  only  necessary  to  point  to  a 
few  well-known  examples.  One  of  the  most  striking  is  fur 
nished  by  the  ancient  country  of  the  Pharaohs,  after  the  time 
that  their  dynasty  came  to  an  end,  and  a  succession  of  con 
quests,  followed  by  the  ascendency  of  a  foreign  power,  swept 
over  the  land.  Persian,  Macedonian,  Roman,  and  Arabian 
conquerors  in  turn  held  possession  of  the  throne  of  Egypt, 
each  endeavouring  to  establish  as  firmly  as  possible  their  do 
minion  over  the  vanquished,  and  to  render  their  sway  enduring 
and  complete.  Yet  after  this  subduing  and  fusing  process 
had  been  proceeding  for  twelve  or  fourteen  centuries,  we  have 
the  best  grounds  for  believing  that  the  language  of  the  Pha 
raohs  still  survived,  and  continued,  though  not,  we  may  well 

1  Encyclopedia Britannica,  7th  ed.,  Art.  'Hieroglyphics,'  c.  2d. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  17 

conceive,  without  the  introduction  of  many  foreign  admixtures, 
to  form  the  staple  of  the  vernacular  tongue  of  the  people. 
What  is  called  the  Coptic  language  is  but  a  correct  form  of 
the  old  Egyptic,  (as  the  name  also,  perhaps,  is.1)  Into  this 
language  the  Scriptures  were  translated  in  the  earlier  ages  of 
Christianity;  a  liturgy  in  common  use  probably  about  the 
fifth  or  sixth  century,  is  still  employed  by  the  few  remaining 
Copts  of  the  present  day — though  the  Coptic  tongue  in  which 
it  is  written  is  no  longer  understood  by  them.  They  adhere 
to  it  merely  as  a  venerable  relic  of  the  better  past  of  their 
history ;  of  which  it  forms  an  abiding,  though  a  mournful  and 
mummy-like  witness.  But  its  introduction  into  the  churches 
of  Egypt  a  few  centuries  after  the  Christian  era  testifies  to 
the  fact,  that  the  substance  of  the  ancient  language  had  with 
stood  the  influences  of  foreign  conquest  and  dominion  for  more 
than  a  thousand  years. 

We  may,  however,  take  an  example  nearer  home.  The 
Norman  conquest  took  place  in  the  year  1066;  and  it  is  well 
known  to  have  been  the  policy  of  the  first  Norman  kings — a 
policy,  too,  that  was  continued  with  steady  aim  by  their  suc 
cessors — to  get  rid  of  the  old  Saxon  entirely,  and  have  it  sup 
planted  by  their  own  Norman  French.  In  this  French  the 
statutes  of  the  realm  were  written ;  so  also  were  commentaries 
upon  the  laws,  and  the  decisions  of  the  courts  of  justice.  In 
many  places  it  was  at  length  introduced  into  the  common 
schools;  so  that  an  old  chronicler  (Ralph  Higden)  complains 
of  it  as  a  thing  "  against  the  usage  and  manner  of  all  other 
nations,"  that  "  children  in  schools  are  compelled  for  to  leave 
their  own  language,  and  to  construe  their  lessons  and  their 
things  in  French."  A  change  in  this  respect  only  began  to 
be  introduced  about  the  year  1885 — more  than  three  centu 
ries  after  the  conquest — when  the  English  again  resumed  its 
place  in  the  schools ; — and  though  it  was  English  materially 
altered,  betraying  in  many  respects  the  influence  of  Norman 
domination,  yet  it  still  retained  its  old  Saxon  root  and  trunk. 
The  power  and  policy  of  the  conquerors,  though  in  active  ope 
ration  for  more  than  three  centuries,  could  prevail  no  further 

? — Gyptos,  Coptos,  Coptic. 


18  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OF 

than  to  superinduce  some  partial  changes  upon  the  mother 
tongue  of  the  people,  and  introduce  some  additional  terms; 
and  that,  too,  while  this  tongue  itself  was  in  a  comparatively 
crude  state,  and  very  far  from  having  reached  its  matured 
form. 

Other  examples  might  be  referred  to — such  as  the  Welsh, 
the  Gaelic,  and  the  Irish-speaking  portions  of  the  British  Isles, 
from  which  still  more  powerful  and  long-continued  influences 
have  not  freen  sufficient  to  dislodge  the  ancient  dialects  from 
their  place,  as  the  customary  vehicles  of  intercourse  among 
the  people.  But  it  is  needless  to  enlarge.  The  cases  adduced 
are  by  no  means  singular;  they  are  but  specimens  of  a  multi 
tude — exemplifications  of  principles  and  habits  that  are  inhe 
rent  in  human  nature,  operating  equally  among  all  races  and 
in  all  climes.  And  is  it,  then,  to  be  conceived,  with  such  facts 
presenting  themselves  in  the  linguistic  history  of  tribes  and 
nations,  that  the  effect  of  a  foreign  rule  in  Palestine — a  rule 
that  had  not  for  more  than  two  or  three  centuries  possessed 
the  form  of  a  stringent  and  pervasive  domination — the  rule, 
too,  of  masters,  who  themselves  spoke  different  languages, 
first  Persian,  then  Greek,  then  lioman,  and  who  never  were 
so  closely  identified  with  the  subjects  of  their  sway  as  in  the 
cases  already  noticed — is  it  yet  to  be  conceived,  that  the  ef 
fect  here  was  to  be  such,  as  to  bring  about  an  entire  revolu 
tion  in  the  vernacular  language  of  the  people?  The  suppo 
sition  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable — we  may  even  say, 
morally  impossible;  the  rather  so,  as  the  Jews  had  reasons 
connected  with  their  religion,  their  history,  and  their  pros 
pects,  for  cleaving  to  their  language,  which  no  other  people, 
either  in  ancient  or  in  modern  times,  equally  possessed. 
Every  thing  in  the  past  and  the  future  contributed  to  throw 
an  air  of  sacredness  and  grandeur  around  the  Hebrew  lan 
guage,  which  must  have  doubly  endeared  it  to  their  minds, 
and,  on  the  part  of  their  conquerors,  have  greatly  aggravated 
the  difficulty  of  supplanting  it  by  another  altogether  different. 

It  is,  therefore,  against  all  analogy,  .and  in  opposition  to 
the  strongest  tendencies  of  human  nature,  to  suppose  that  in 
such  circumstances  the  Greek  tongue  should,  in  the  age  of 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  10 

our  Lord  and  His  apostles,  have  come  into  general  use  in  Pa 
lestine,  and  to  any  considerable  extent  taken  the  place  of 
Aramaic.  "With  far  more  probability  might  it  be  maintained 
that  Norman  and  not  Anglo-Saxon  was  the  language  of  com 
mon  life  among  the  English  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
centuries,  or  that  in  the  present  day  English  is  understood 
and  spoken  by  the  mass  of  the  population  in  the  Principality 
of  Wales,  or  in  the  Highlands  of  Scotland.  It  is  true,  how 
ever,  that  the  ancient  language  of  Palestine  had  undergone  a 
certain  change;  it  had  in  some  degree  suffered  by  the  misfor 
tunes  of  the  people,  and  had  lost  its  original  purity.  The 
long  sojourn  in  Chaldea,  in  the  first  instance,  then  the  in 
tercourse  kept  up  with  the  neighbouring  Syrian  tribes  through 
commerce,  war,  and  marriage  relationships,  naturally  brought 
into  it  foreign  elements,  and  imparted  to  it  a  Syro-Chaldaic 
form.  Of  this  we  have  undoubted  indications,  both  in  the 
later  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  occasional  notices 
and  expressions  that  occur  in  the  New.  But  these  successive 
changes  only  affected  the  accidents  of  the  language ;  they  in 
troduced  new  dialects,  antiquated  particular  words  and  phrases, 
and  obtained  currency  for  others  in  their  stead;  but — as  in 
all  similar  cases — they  left  the  bones  and  sinews  of  the  lan 
guage,  its  structure  and  essence,  substantially  what  they  were. 
The  historical  proofs  of  this  are  perfectly  sufficient.  Jose- 
phus,  for  example,  constantly  distinguishes  between  his  native 
tongue  and  the  Greek.  While  he  speaks  of  having  applied 
diligently  to  domestic  and  foreign  literature,  so  as  even  to  be 
acknowledged  by  all  his  countrymen  as  a  person  of  superior 
learning,  he  yet  confesses  himself  to  have  been  so  long  accus 
tomed  to  his  own  tongue  (xdrpcoz  auvfjdeta)  that  he  could  not 
attain  to  an  accurate  pronunciation  of  the  Greek,  (Antiq.  xx. 
11,  2.)  In  the  introduction,  as  well  to  the  Antiquities  as  to 
the  Wars,  he  speaks  of  writing  in  the  Greek  language  and  in 
his  native  tongue,  as  two  distinct  things,  and  says,  that  what 
he  originally  wrote  in  the  one  he  afterwards  translated  into 
the  other,  (' E/j.o.ot  ~()M  Gay  /j-ZTufictAaju,  &  ro?c  fiapfidpotz  ?"fi  ~u- 
roUu  (Twrdzaz,  Bell.  Jud.  Pro.  1,  Antiq.  Pro.  2.)  And  once 
and  again  he  represents  the  communications  sent  from  Titus 


20  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OP 

during  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  as  being  interpreted  by  himself 
to  the  Jews,  or  by  some  other  person  who  Hebraised  (£j8a^£a»v,) 
as  he  terms  it,  or  spake  to  them  in  their  own  tongue  (narpiaj 
fhoocrfl,  Bell.,  v.  9,  2,  vi.  2,  11.)  At  the  same  time  he  shows, 
by  occasional  allusions  to  Syriac  or  Babylonian  terms,  that 
the  Hebrew  current  in  his  day  was  not  altogether  identical 
with  that  of  earlier  times — as  when,  speaking  of  the  high 
priest's  upper  robe  or  girdle,  he  tells  us  the  old  designation 
for  it  had  been  dropt  (GJ3K,  abaneth,)  and  it  was  now  called  by 
the  Babylonian  name  Emia,  (Antiq.  iii..T,  2,) — a  proof  that 
the  foreign  influence  had  reached  even  to  the  terms  for  sacred 
things,  and  if  to  these,  then  assuredly  to  many  others. 

When  we  turn  to  the  New  Testament,  the  evidence  is  not 
less  clear  on  both  points — both,  that  the  language  in  common 
use  in  Palestine  was  of  the  Hebrew,  not  of  the  Greek  cha 
racter,  yet  Hebrew  of  the  Aramaic,  not  of  the  older  and  purer 
Hebrew  stamp.  Thus,  when  our  Lord  appears  in  the  attitude 
of  addressing  any  one  very  familiarly,  of  giving  or  adopting 
designations  for  common  use,  He  is  represented  as  speaking 
in  Aramaic: — as  when  He  said  to  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  Ta- 
litha  cumi,  ^p*p  wvSp,  Mark  v.  41,)  and  to  the  blind  man, 
Ephphatha,  (nnanN,  Mark  vii.  34;)  or  when  He  referred  to 
the  terms  currently  employed  among  the  people-,  such  as  raka, 
rabbi,  corban;  when  he  applied  to  His  disciples  such  epithets 
as  Cephas,  Bar-jona,  Boanerges,  ( &.*?  "2? ;)  or  when  on  the 
cross  He  exclaimed,  Eli,  Eli,  lama  Sabacthani.  Similar  in 
dications  are  also  to  be  found  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles — 
in  the  name,  for  example,  reported  to  have  been  given  by  the 
Jews  to  the  field  purchased  by  the  reward  of  Judas'  treachery, 
Aceldama,  (properly  <A*£AJ*jw*>  ^?^p3,  i.  19;)  or  of  tabitha 
as  the  familiar  term,  the  native  word  for  the  Greek  £opxet$, 
(ix.  36;)  or,  finally,  in  the  fact  of  St.  Paul  addressing  the 
Jewish  multitude  on  the  occasion  of  his  being  apprehended  in 
the  temple,  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  their  giving,  on  that 
account,  the  more  attentive  heed  to  him,  as  addressing  them 
through  a  medium  which  was  at  once  intelligible  and  congenial 
to  their  minds,  (ch.  xxii.  1.)  The  composition  also  of  Targums 
among  the  Eastern  Jews,  some  time  about  the  apostolic  age, 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  21 

(certainly  little  if  at  all  later,)  can  only  be  explained  on  the 
supposition  that  the  Aramaic  language  in  which  they  were 
written,  was  that  currently  employed  at  the  time  by  the  Jews 
in  Palestine  and  the  adjoining  regions.  Nor  is  there  any  clear 
or  even  probable  evidence  of  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  ever  having  been  used  in  the  synagogues 
of  Palestine  and  Syria.  The  eiforts  that  have  been  made  to 
establish  this  point,  have  utterly  failed ;  indeed,  it  can  scarcely 
be  said,  that  so  much  as  one  of  the  proofs  advanced  by  Dio- 
dati  in  support  of  it,  has  any  proper  bearing  on  the  subject.1 
On  all  these  grounds  it  appears  to  us  a  matter  of  historical 
certainty,  that  the  Aramaic,  or  later  Syro-Chaldaic  form  of 
the  Hebrew,  was  in  the  age  of  our  Lord  the  vernacular  lan 
guage  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  consequently  the  medium  of 
intercourse  on  all  ordinary  occasions.  At  the  same  time,  it 
cannot  be  reasonably  doubted,  on  the  other  side,  that  from  a 
long  and  varied  concatenation  of  circumstances,  the  Greek 
language  must  have  been  very  commonly  understood  by  the 
higher  and  more  educated  classes  throughout  Syria.  It  was 
the  policy  both  of  Alexander  and  of  his  successors  in  that 
part  of  the  world,  to  extend  the  language  and  culture,  as  well 
as  ascendency  of  Greece.  With  this  view  cities  were  planted 
af  convenient  distances,  which  might  be  considered  Grecian 
rather  than  Asiatic  in  their  population  and  manners.  The 
Syrian  kings,  by  whom  the  Macedonian  line  of  rulers  was 
continued,  kept  up  Greek  as  the  court  language,  and  were 
doubtless  followed  by  their  official  representatives,  and  the 
influential  classes  generally  throughout  the  country.  The 
army,  too,  though  not  entirely,  nor  perhaps  even  in  the  major 
part,  yet  certainly  in  very  considerable  proportions,  was  com 
posed  of  persons  of  Grecian  origin,  who  could  not  fail  to  make 
the  Greek  language  in  some  sense  familiar  at  the  various  mili 
tary  stations  in  the  regions  of  Syria.  Even  after  the  Mace 
donian  rule  had  terminated,  and  all  became  subject  to  the 
sway  of  the  Romans,  it  was  still  usually  through  the  medium 

1  The  arguments  by  Diodati  are  well  met  by  Dr.  Pfannkuche,  in  vol.  II., 
of  Bib.  Cabinet.  A  fair  summary  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides  is  given  by 
Dr,  Davidson,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  I.  pp.  38 — 40. 


22  THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OF 

of  the  Greek  tongue  that  official  intercourse  was  maintained, 
and  the  decrees  of  government  were  made  known.  It  is  in 
the  very  nature  of  things  impossible  that  so  many  Hellenizing 
influences  should  have  continued  in  operation  for  two  or  three 
centuries,  without  leading  somewhat  generally  to  a  partial 
knowledge  of  Greek  among  the  better  classes  in  all  parts  of 
Syria.  There  were  also  circumstances  more  strictly  peculiar 
to  the  Jewish  people,  which  require  to  be  taken  into  account, 
and  which  could  not  be  without  their  effect  in  bringing  them 
to  some  extent  acquainted  with  the  Greek  language.  Partly 
from  special  encouragements  held  out  to  them  at  the  founding 
of  Alexandria,  a  Grecian  city,  and  partly,  perhaps,  from  the 
mercantile  spirit  which  began  to  take  possession  of  them 
from  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  Alexandria  became 
one  of  their  great  centres,  where,  as  we  are  told  by  Philo, 
they  formed  about  two-fifths  of  the  entire  population.  They 
abounded  also,  as  is  clear  alone  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
in  the  Greek-speaking  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  and  in  those  of 
Greece  itself.  From  whatever  causes,  the  dispersion  seems, 
for  some  generations  previous  to  the  Christian  era,  to  have 
taken  very  much  a  western,  and  specially  a  Grecian  di 
rection;  in  every  place  of  importance  inhabited  by  Greeks, 
members  of  the  stock  of  Israel  had  their  homes  and  syna 
gogues.  It  is  only,  too,  what  might  have  been  expected  in 
the  circumstances,  that  the  culture  and  enterprise  which  dis 
tinguished  the  communities  in  those  Grecian  cities,  would  act 
with  stimulating  effect  upon  the  Jewish  mind,  and  bring  its 
powers  into  more  energetic  play  and  freedom  of  action,  than 
was  likely  to  be  found  among  the  Palestinian  Jews,  who  were 
sealed  up  in  their  national  bigotry  and  stagnant  Pharisaism. 
Hence,  the  only  moral  and  religious  productions  which  are 
known  to  have  appeared  among  the  Jews  between  the  closing 
of  the  Old  Testament  canon  and  the  birth  of  Christ — those 
contained  in  the  Apocryphal  writings — came  chiefly  if  not 
entirely  from  the  pen  of  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  and  exist  only 
— most  probably  never  did  exist  but — in  the  Greek  language. 
Hence  also  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
was  completed  several  generations  before  the  Christian  era, 


THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  23 

and  which,  there  is  good  reason  to  believe,  was  in  extensive 
use  about  that  era  among  the  Jewish  people.  So  that,  look 
ing  to  the  numbers,  the  higher  intelligence,  and  varied  resources 
of  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  and  taking  into  account  their  frequent 
personal  visits  to  Palestine  at  the  ever-recurring  festivals,  we 
cannot  doubt  that  they  materially  contributed  to  a  partial 
knowledge  and  use  of  the  Greek  tongue  among  their  brethren 
in  Palestine. 

As  regards  the  question,  then,  whether  our  Lord  and  his 
immediate  disciples  ever  spoke  in  Greek  to  their  countrymen 
in  Judea,  it  may  be  admitted  as  perfectly  possible,  perhaps 
even  probable,  that  they  sometimes  did  so — but  the  reverse  of 
probable,  that  such  should  haye  been  their  usual  practice,  or 
that  their  public  addresses  should  have  been  originally  de 
livered  in  that  tongue; — the  more  so,  as  their  intercourse  for 
the  most  part  lay,  not  with  the  more  refined  and  educated, 
but  with  the  humbler  classes  of  society.  But  in  respect  to 
the  further  question,  why  in  such  a  case  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,  including  those  which  contain  our  Lord's  personal 
discourses,  should,  with  at  most  one  exception — if  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Matthew  be  indeed  an  exception — have  been  originally 
composed  in  the  Greek,  rather  than  the  Aramaic  language? 
the  answer  is  obvious — that  at  the  time  those  books  were 
written,  and  for  the  individuals  and  communities  whose  spiri 
tual  good  they  more  immediately  contemplated,  the  Greek 
language  was  on  every  account  the  fittest  medium.  It  was 
comparatively  but  a  small  portion  of  the  people  resident  in 
Jerusalem  and  Judea,  who  embraced  the  Christian  faith;  and 
those  who  did,  having  in  the  first  instance  enjoyed  many  op 
portunities  of  becoming  personally  acquainted  with  the  facts 
of  gospel  history,  and  enjoying  afterwards  the  ministry  of 
apostles  and  evangelists,  who  were  perfectly  cognisant  of  the 
whole,  were  in  a  jnanner  independent  of  any  written  records. 
Besides,  the  troubles  which  shortly  after  befel  their  native 
land,  and  which  were  distinctly  foreseen  by  the  founders  of 
the  Christian  faith,  destined,  as  they  were,  to  scatter  the 
power  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  to  render  its  land  and  people 
monuments  of  judgment,  presented  an  anticipative  reason 


21      THE  ORIGINAL  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  ' 

against  committing  the  sacred  and  permanent  records  of  the 
Christian  faith  to  the  Hebrew  language.  That  language,  it 
self  already  corrupted  and  broken,  was  presently  to  become 
to  all  but  the  merest  fragment  of  the  Jews  themselves,  anti 
quated  and  obsolete.  The  real  centres  of  Christianity — the 
places  where  it  took  firmest  root,  and  from  which  it  sent  forth 
its  regenerating  power  among  the  nations — from  the  time  that 
authoritative  records  of  its  facts  and  expositions  of  its  doc 
trines  became  necessary — were  to  be  found  in  Greek-speaking 
communities — the  communities  scattered  throughout  the  cities 
of  Asia  Minor,  of  Greece,  at  Rome  and  the  West — where  also 
the  first  converts  to  the  faith  consisted  chiefly  of  those  whose 
native  tongue  was  Greek.  Whether,  therefore,  respect  were 
had  to  the  immediate  wants  of  the  first  Christian  communities, 
or  to  the  quarters  in  which  the  gospel  was  to  find  its  most  ac 
tive  agents  and  representatives,  and  the  direction  it  was  ap 
pointed  to  take  in  the  world,  the  Greek  was  obviously  the  lan 
guage  in  which  its  original  and  authoritative  documents  be 
hooved  to  be  written.  Whatever  reasons  there  were  for  the 
adherents  of  Judaism  getting  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Tes 
tament  rendered  into  Greek;  whatever  reasons  also  Josephus 
could  have  for  translating  into  Greek  his  Jewish  histories,  and 
the  authors  of  the  Apocryphal  writings  for  adopting  that  lan 
guage  in  preference  to  Aramaic,  the  same  reasons  existed, 
and  in  far  greater  force,  for  the  inspired  writings,  which  were 
to  form  in  earlier  and  later  times  the  fundamental  records  of 
the  Christian  faith,  being  composed  in  the  Greek  language, 
and  in  that  language  committed  to  the  faithful  keeping  of 
the  church.  Had  they  not  been  originally  composed  in  Greek, 
the  course  of  Providence  would  presently  have  required  that 
they  should  be  translated  into  Greek ;  and  considering  how 
much  depended  on  the  correct  knowledge  of  them,  and  how 
many  sources  we  have  for  illustrating  Greek,  as  compared 
with  Aramaic  productions,  it  was  unspeakably  better  that, 
from  the  first,  they  should  have  appeared  in  a  Greek  form. 


THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.          25 


SECTION  SECOND. 

THE   CHARACTERISTICS  OP  NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK. 

I.  Being  satisfied  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
were  written  in  Greek,  our  next  inquiry  naturally  turns  on 
the  precise  character  of  this  Greek.  Is  it  fashioned  after  the 
model  of  classical  Greek,  or  has  it  laws  and  properties  of  its 
own?  If  the  latter,  wherein  consist  its  distinctive  peculiari 
ties?  This  is  evidently  a  subject  of  no  small  moment  for  the 
correct  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  and  de 
mands  a  careful  examination.  In  the  present  day,  it  can 
scarcely  be  said,  that  there  is  any  material  difference  of  opi 
nion  upon  the  subject.  This  common  agreement,  however, 
is  the  result  partly  of  a  long  controversy,  and  partly  of  the 
more  exact  and  impartial  treatment  of  Scripture,  which  is  the 
general  characteristic  of  present,  as  compared  with  earlier, 
times.  Indeed,  the  question,  in  so  far  as  it  has  been  agitated, 
has  usually  turned,  not  so  much  upon  the  fact  of  a  difference 
between  New  Testament  and  classical  Greek,  (which  no  com 
petent  scholar  could  fail  to  perceive,)  as  upon  the  extent  of 
the  difference,  and  the  precise  light  in  which  it  was  to  be  re 
garded.  So  early  as  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  we  find 
distinct  notice  taken  of  the  difference.  Erasmus,  for  exam 
ple,  says  on  Acts  x.  38,  "  The  apostles  had  not  learned  their 
Greek  from  the  speeches  of  Demosthenes,  but  from  the  lan 
guage  of  common  discourse ;  and  I  should  think  it  best  suited 
to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  that  it  was  communicated  in  a  simple 
and  unpolished  style,  and  that  the  discourse  of  the  apostles 
resembled  their  clothing,  their  manners,  and  their  whole  life. 
Pious  persons  should  as  little  take  offence  at  the  language  of 
the  apostles,  as  at  their  unwashed  bodies,  and  their  plebeian 
garments."  Beza,  in  a  long  note  on  the  same  chapter,  only 
so  far  controverts  the  sentiments  of  Erasmus,  as  the  latter  had 
affirmed  the  language  of  the  apostles  to  be  relatively  imper 
fect  and  obscure,  as  well  as  unpolished;  but  he  admits  the 
3 


26  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

existence  of  Hebraistic  peculiarities,  and  of  occasional  sole 
cisms.  Practically,  however,  the  theological  writers  of  that 
period  treated  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  much  as 
they  would  have  done  any  other  production  in  Greek,  and  as 
if  it  had  no  very  marked  peculiarities  of  its  own.  The  doc 
trinal  discussions,  too,  in  which  they,  and  their  immediate 
successors  in  sacred  learning,  were  so  much  engaged,  tended 
not  a  little  to  impede  the  exact  philological  study  of  the  Greek 
Scriptures,  and  their  relation  in  point  of  dialect  to  other  Greek 
writings,  from  a  too  prominent  regard  to  polemical  discussions. 
Often,  indeed,  Greek  studies  were  prosecuted  for  the  pur 
pose  mainly  of  impugning  or  defending  out  of  Scripture  a  par 
ticular  class  of  doctrines;  and,  as  a  natural  consequence,  the 
New  Testament  came  to  be  regarded  as  an  ordinary  specimen 
of  Greek,  and  to  be  commonly  used  as  a  class-book  for  the 
acquirement  of  the  language.  Nor,  by  and  by,  were  there 
wanting  persons  to  contend  for  the  absolute  purity  of  its  style 
— including  among  others  the  well-known  printer,  Robert  Ste 
phens — persons  who  sought  to  prove,  that  the  seeming  pecu 
liarities  of  the  New  Testament  dialect  were  also  to  be  met 
with  in  the  contemporaneous  and  earlier  writings  of  Greece. 
It  was  the  more  common  opinion,  however,  among  learned 
men  during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  that 
there  are  certain  terms  and  modes  of  expression  frequently 
employed  in  the  New  Testament,  and  derived  from  the  Hebrew, 
which  characteristically  distinguish  it  from  the  writings  belong 
ing  to  Greece  proper;  but  yet  that  the  introduction  of  these 
— to  use  the  language  of  Pfeiffer,  who  speaks  the  general  sen 
timent  of  his  age1 — "  is  to  be  sought,  not  in  any  degeneracy 
of  the  Greek  language  into  a  distinct  Hellenistic  dialect,  but 
in  an  assimilation  of  the  style  of  the  New  Testament  to  that 
of  the  Old,  through  an  especial  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Such  Hebraisms  are  not  to  be  reckoned  as  solecisms,  or  barba 
risms,  but  modes  of  speech,  which  are  peculiar  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  If  the  style  of  the  New  Testament  (he  adds)  may  be 
designated  by  any  name,  it  should  rather  be  called  after  the 
authors,  the  sacred  Greek  style,  than  either  Hellenistic,  or 

1  Klausen's  Hermeneutik,  p.  260. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  27 

half  Hebraistic,  or  Hebrew  Greek,  or  Hebraizing,  to  say  no 
thing  of  disfigured  Greek." 

We  have  here,  no  doubt,  in  substance,  the  right  view  of  the 
matter — though  with  an  error  in  the  formal  representation  of 
it,  the  offspring  of  a  not  unnatural,  though  mistaken  dread, 
lest,  in  conceding  the  strict  purity  of  New  Testament  Greek, 
a  kind  of  slight  should  be  thrown  upon  the  medium  of  the 
Spirit's  communication.  The  strongest  representative  of  this 
feeling,  perhaps,  may  be  found  in  Black  wall,  who,  in  his  Sa 
cred  Classics,  both  denied  that  many  of  the  alleged  peculiari 
ties  of  New  Testament  Greek  are  Hebraistic  or  Oriental 
idioms,  and  claimed  for  such,  as  he  admitted  to  be  of  this  de 
scription,  the  character  of  true  and  proper  ornaments.  "  He 
did  not  consider,"  as  justly  remarked  by  Dr.  Campbell,  in  the 
first  preliminary  dissertation  to  the  gospels,  "  that  when  he 
admitted  any  Hebraisms  in  the  New  Testament,  he  in  effect 
gave  up  the  cause.  That  only  can  be  called  a  Hebraism  in  a 
Greek  book,  which  though  agreeable  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  is 
not  so  to  the  Greek.  Nobody  would  ever  call  that  a  Scotti 
cism,  which  is  equally  in  the  manner  of  both  Scotch  and  Eng 
lish.  Now,  such  foreign  idioms  as  Hebraisms  in  Greek,  Gre- 
cisms  in  Hebrew,  or  Latinisms  in  either,  come  all  within  the 
definition  of  barbarism,  and  sometimes  even  of  solecism — 
words  which  have  always  something  relative  in  their  significa 
tion ;  that  term  of  expression  being  a  barbarism  or  a  solecism 
in  one  language,  which  is  strictly  proper  in  another,  and,  I 
may  add,  to  one  set  of  hearers,  which  is  not  so  to  another. 
It  is  in  vain,  then,  for  any  one  to  debate  about  the  applica 
tion  of  the  names  barbarism  and  solecism.  To  do  so,  is  at 
best  but  to  wrangle  about  words,  after  admitting  all  that  is 
meant  by  them." 

So  obvious  is  this  view  of  the  matter,  and  so  readily  does 
it  commend  itself  to  one's  practical  judgment,  that  it  seems 
strange  there  should  ever  have  been  any  unwillingness  to  ad 
mit  it.  The  unwillingness,  as  we  have  mentioned,  simply  arose 
from  a  mistaken  idea  of  some  necessary  connexion  subsisting 
between  purity  of  diction  and  inspiration  of  sentiment;  cer 
tainly  a  mistaken  idea,  for  the  imagined  purity  is  expressly 


28  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OP 

disclaimed  by  the  most  learned  of  all  the  apostles,  who  repre 
sents  himself  as  naturally  appearing  to  a  Greek  audience 
"rude  in  speech;"  and  of  his  method  of  discourse  generally, 
including  doubtless  the  language  in  which  it  was  expressed, 
he  declares  that  it  did  not  aim  at  excellency  of  words.  A 
strictly  classical  diction  would  not  have  been  natural  to  him 
and  the  other  apostles.  And  as  it  was  the  rule  of  the  Spirit 
in  all  His  supernatural  gifts  and  operations  to  proceed  on  the 
basis  of  what  is  natural,  it  would,  in  the  first  instance,  have 
been  contrary  to  the  usual  method  of  the  Spirit's  working,  if 
they  had  given  utterance  to  their  thoughts  in  language  of  fine 
polish  and  unexceptionable  purity.  It  would,  in  fact,  have 
required  a  kind  of  second  inspiration  to  secure  this,  and  one 
so  little  in  accordance  with  the  principle  usually  acted  on  in 
like  cases,  that  it  might  well  have  suggested  a  doubt  as  to  the 
reality  of  the  first.  If  the  apostles  had  written  with  the  clas 
sical  taste,  which  is  sometimes  claimed  for  them,  thoughtful 
minds  would  have  found  some  difficulty  in  believing  them  to 
be  the  authors  of  their  own  productions.  And  we,  in  this 
remoter  age,  should  have  wanted  one  of  the  most  important 
evidences  of  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  New  Testa 
ment  Scripture — its  being  written  in  the  style  natural  to  the 
persons  by  whom,  and  the  age  in  which,  it  was  produced.  The 
language  is  precisely  what  might  have  been  expected  from 
Jews  at  that  particular  time  expressing  themselves  in  Greek. 
And  this,  beyond  doubt,  is  the  fundamental  reason  for  the 
style  being  precisely  what  it  is.  But  the  apostle  Paul  con 
nects  with  it  in  his  own  case — connects  with  its  very  deficien 
cies  in  respect  to  classical  refinement  and  rhetorical  finish — 
the  further  and  higher  reason,  that  it  but  served  the  more 
strikingly  to  exhibit  the  direct  agency  of  God's  Spirit  in  the 
success  of  the  gospel.  He  spake,  in  delivering  the  Divine 
message,  and  of  course  also  wrote,  "  not  with  the  wisdom  of 
words,  lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should  be  made  of  none  effect;" 
and  "  his  preaching  was  not  with  enticing  words  of  man's  wis 
dom,  but  in  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power,  that 
your  faith  (the  faith  of  those  who  listened  to  his  preaching) 
might  not  stand  in  the  wisdom  of  men,  but  in  the  power  of 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  29 

God,"  (1  Cor.  ii.  4,  5.)  His  meaning  evidently  is,  that  in 
himself  and  the  other  heralds  of  the  gospel,  in  their  personal 
attributes  and  in  their  whole  manner  of  address,  there  were  ob 
vious  defects  and  imperfections,  as  judged  by  the  standard  of 
worldly  taste  and  refined  culture;  and  that,  not  as  a  matter 
of  accident,  but  of  Divine  choice — for  the  purpose  of  render 
ing  more  palpable  and  conspicuous  the  operation  of  God's  hand 
in  the  results  that  were  accomplished  through  their  instrumen 
tality. 

Even  this  is  not  the  whole.  Another  reason  still  may  be 
added  for  the  same  thing,  and  one  too  commonly  overlooked 
by  those  who  contended  against  the  purists.  There  was  a  ne 
cessity  in  the  case  for  securing  the  proper  ends  of  a  divine 
revelation — a  necessity  for  a  certain  departure  from  the  pure 
classical  style,  and  calling  in  the  aid  of  Jewish  idioms  and 
forms  of  speech,  in  order  to  exhibit  in  the  most  distinct  and 
appropriate  manner  the  peculiar  truths  of  the  gospel.  As 
these  truths  required  the  preparation  of  much  time  and  special 
providences  for  their  proper  growth  and  development,  so  also 
did  the  language,  in  which  they  were  to  be  finally  presented 
to  the  world,  require  something  of  H  peculiar  conformation. 
The  native  language  of  Greece,  though  in  some  respects  the 
most  perfect  medium  for  the  communication  of  thought  which 
has  ever  been  employed  by  the  tongue  of  man,  yet  from  being 
always  conversant  with  worldly  things,  adapted  to  express 
every  shade  of  thought  and  every  variety  of  relationship  with 
in  the  human  and  earthly  sphere — but  still  only  these — it  was 
not  fully  adequate  to  the  requirements  and  purposes  of  Chris 
tian  authorship.  For  this  higher  end  it  needed  to  borrow 
something  from  the  sanctuary  of  God,  and  be,  as  it  were, 
baptized  in  the  modes  of  thought  and  utterance  which  were 
familiar  to  those  who  had  enjoyed  the  training  of  the  Spirit. 
So  that  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  formed  a  necessary 
preparation  for  the  language  of  the  New,  as  did  also  the  his 
tory  and  institutions  of  the  one  for  the  religious  ideas  of  the 
other.  Nor  is  it  too  much  to  say,  as  indeed  has  been  said, 
"  that  a  pure  Greek  gospel,  a  pure  Greek  apostolic  epistle  is 

3* 


30  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

inconceivable.     The  canonical  and  the  Hebrew  are  most  inti 
mately  connected."1 

It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  all  this,  and  no  less  true,  that 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  often  show  a  correct  ac 
quaintance  with  the  idioms  of  the  Greek  language,  and  knew 
how  to  distinguish  between  the  nicer  shades  of  meaning  in 
many  of  its  expressions.  There  are  numberless  passages  in 
their  writings  which  are  scarcely  less  remarkable  for  the  lofty 
elevation  of  thought  they  convey,  than  for  the  graceful  and 
felicitous  form  in  which  it  is  embodied.  And  if  we  must  say, 
on  the  one  hand,  that  their  language,  as  a  whole,  exhibits 
frequent  deviations  from  the  purity  of  Attic  Greek,  we  must 
say  also,  on  the  other,  that  it  often  makes  near  approaches 
to  this — differing,  if  not  only,  yet  most  distinctly  and  chiefly, 
when  the  higher  purposes  for  which  they  wrote  required  them 
so  to  do.  Their  language  may  thus  be  said  to  be  of  a  some 
what  irregular  and  oscillatory  character.  "  In  many  cases  it 
rises  superior  to  the  common  dialect  of  the  time,  and  approaches 
marvellously  near  to  the  vigour  and  precision  of  Attic  Greek, 
while  in  other  usages  it  seems  to  sink  below  the  average  stand 
ard,  and  to  present  to  us*the  peculiarities  of  the  later  Greek, 
distorted  and  exaggerated  by  Aramaic  forms  of  expression. 
This  mixed  character  of  the  language  is  very  interesting  and 
suggestive.  It  shows  us  how  at  one  time  the  august  nature 
of  the  narrative,  from  the  vital  force  of  the  truths  it  revealed, 
wove  round  itself  a  garb  of  clear  and  vigorous  diction  of  Attic 
power,  and  more  than  Attic  simplicity:  and  yet  how,  at  other 
times,  in  the  enunciation  of  more  peculiarly  scriptural  senti 
ments  and  doctrines,  the  nationality  of  the  writer  comes  into 
view,  and  with  it  his  inaptitude — his  providential  inaptitude 
(we  may  thankfully  say) — at  presenting  definite  Christian 
truths  in  the  smooth,  fluent,  yet  possibly  unimpressive  [and 
spiritually  defective]  turns  of  language,  which  the  native 
Greek — the  Greek  of  the  first  century — would  have  instinc 
tively  adopted.  Where,  however,  in  a  merely  literary  point 
of  view,  the  sacred  volume  may  thus  seem  weakest,  it  is,  con 
sidered  from  a  higher  point  of  view,  incomparably  strongest. 

1  Hengsteuberg  on  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  ii.,  p.  442. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  31 

It  is  this  investiture  of  its  doctrines  with  the  majesty  of  He 
braistic  imagery  [and  the  peculiar  richness  and  force  of  He 
braistic  modes  of  expression,]  rather  than  with  the  diffluent 
garb  of  a  corrupted  and  decaded  Hellenism  that  does  truly  re 
veal  to  us  the  overruling  providence  and  manifold  wisdom  of 
God/'1 

Whether,  therefore,  we  look  to  what  was  in  itself  natural 
and  proper  at  the  time,  to  what  was  in  fittest  accordance  with 
the  purposes  for  which  the  gospel  revelation  was  given,  or, 
finally,  to  what  was  required  by  the  demands  of  the  revelation 
itself,  on  each  account  there  appears  ground  for  concluding, 
that  not  the  earlier  and  purer  Greek  of  the  classics,  but  the 
later  Greek  of  the  apostolic  age,  intermingled  with  and  modi 
fied  by  the  Hebraisms,  which  were  natural  and  familiar  to 
those  whose  style  of  thought  and  expression  had  been  moulded 
by  Old  Testament  Scripture,  was  the  appropriate  diction  for 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  Admitting,  however,  that 
such  is  and  ought  to  have  been  its  general  character,  we  have 
still  to  inquire  into  the  special  characteristics  of  this  dialect 
— to  notice  the  more  marked  peculiarities  that  belong  to  it, 
and  which  require  to  be  kept  in  view  by  those  who  would  suc 
ceed  in  the  work  of  interpretation.2 

II.  Undoubtedly  the  basis  of  the  New  Testament  dialect  is 

1  Frazer's  Magazine  for  December,  1855.     Substantially,  indeed,  the  cor 
rect  view  was  given  by  Beza,  in  the  note  already  referred  to  on  Acts  x.  46. 
After  noticing  "the  fine  specimens   of  powerful  and  affecting  writing  to  be 
found,  especially  in  the  epistles  of  Paul,  he  adds,  <4  As  to  the  intermixture  of 
Hebraisms,  it  arose,  not  only  from  their  being  Hebrews,  but  because,  in  dis 
coursing  of  those  things  which  had  been  transmitted  through  the  Hebrew 
tongue,  it  was  necessary  to  retain  much  peculiar  to  it,  lest  they  should  seem 
to  introduce  some  new  doctrine.     And  certainly  I  cannot  in  the  least  wonder 
that  so  many  Hebraisms  have  been  retained  by  them,  since  most  of  these  are 
of  such  a  description,  that  by  no  other  idiom  could  matters  have  been  so  hap 
pily  expressed,  nay,  sometimes  not  expressed  at  all;  so  that,  had  those  for 
mulas  not  been  used,  new  words  and  novel  modes  of  expression  would  have 
needed  to  be  sometimes  employed,  which  no  one  could  properly  have  un 
derstood." 

2  For  a  short  account  of  the  earlier  part  of  the  controversy  on  the  style  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  a  notice  of  some  of  the  leading  authors  and  works  it 
called  forth,  see  Planck's  Sacred  Philology,  Bib.  Cab.  vii.,  pp.  67 — 76. 


32  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

the  xotvi)  oedhxTOz,  the  common,  or  Hellenic  dialect,  as  it  has 
been  called,  of  the  later  Greek.  This  is  the  name  given  to 
the  form  of  the  Greek  language,  which  came  into  general  use 
after  the  Macedonian  conquests.  It  was  called  common,  and 
sometimes  also  Macedonian,  because  it  originated  in  a  sort  of 
fusion  of  the  particular  dialects  which  had  prevailed  in  earlier 
times;  and  this  again  arose,  in  great  measure,  from  the  fusion 
of  the  several  states  of  Greece  into  one  great  empire  under 
kings  of  the  Macedonian  dynasty.  Indeed,  what  are  known 
as  the  four  classical  dialects  of  earlier  times — the  Ionic,  .ZEolic, 
Doric,  and  Attic — were  not  so  properly  the  dialects  in  common 
use  among  the  people,  circulating  in  their  separate  localities, 
as  the  forms  appropriated  to  so  many  departments  of  litera 
ture,  which  severally  took  their  rise  among  the  tribes  that  bore 
the  distinctive  names  referred  to.  There  may  have  been,  and 
most  probably  were,  other  varieties  in  current  use  throughout 
Greece,  but  none,  except  one  or  other  of  the  four  specified, 
were  allowed  to  appear  in  written  productions.  The  Attic, 
however,  surpassed  the  others  so  much,  both  by  its  inherent 
grace,  and  by  the  number  of  distinguished  men  who  employed 
it  in  their  writings,  that  it  came  to  be  generally  regarded  as 
the  model  form  of  the  Greek  language,  and  was  cultivated  by 
nearly  all  who  were  ambitious  of  writing  in  the  purest  style. 
Certain  changes  began  to  pass  upon  this  dialect  after  the  pe 
riod  of  the  Macedonian  conquests,  arising  chiefly  from  the 
Doric  peculiarities  which  predominated  in  Macedonia,  and 
which  now  obtained  a  more  general  currency;  while,  along 
with  these,  occasional  peculiarities  from  the  other  dialects 
were  also  introduced,  probably,  in  the  first  instance,  from  col 
loquial  usage; — the  whole  combining  to  form  the  common 
speech  of  Greece  in  later  times.  Salmasius  was  among  the 
first  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  learned  to  this  subject,  and 
since  his  day  many  others  have  contributed  to  the  same  line 
of  investigation.  Of  these  Henry  Planck  may  be  named  as 
one  of  the  most  careful  and  accurate,  whose  treatise  on  the 
subject  has  been  translated  into  English,  and  forms  part  of 
Vol.  II.  of  Clark's  Biblical  Cabinet.  The  characteristics  of 
this  common  dialect  were  not  quite  uniform;  but  there  are 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  33 

some  general  features  which  distinguish  it  pretty  broadly  from 
the  Greek  of  the  strictly  classical  times.  They  fall  into  two 
leading  classes — lexical  and  grammatical  peculiarities — the 
one  relating  to  the  form  and  usage  of  words,  the  other  to  their 
flexion  and  government.  We  shall  notice  under  each  head 
the  more  marked  and  important  distinctions,  and  in  each  shall 
select  only  such  examples  as  have  a  place  in  New  Testament 
Scripture. 

1.  Under  lexical  peculiarities,  or  such  as  relate  to  the  form 
and  usage  of  words,  there  are,  (1.)  Words  that  received  a  new 
termination: — such  as  fierotxecria,  Matt.  i.  11,  for  which  //£- 
Toixyatz  or  jusToexta  was  employed  in  earlier  times;  xau^rn^ 
often  in  St.  Paul's  writings  for  the  act  or  object  of  glorifying, 
as  previously  in  the  Septuagint,  but  in  Attic  writers  XWJ-/TJ 
or  xaoyj]fj.a\  yzveGta,  which  in  the  earlier  Greek  writers  was 
wont  to  signify  the  solemnities  offered  to  the  dead,  on  the  pe 
riodical  return  of  their  birth-day,  was  latterly  used  for  the 
birth-day  itself,  as  in  Matt.  xiv.  6,  instead  of  fzviQha ;  z*x7ia- 
lat  for  xdtar,  various  words  with  terminations  in  //a,  as 
afnq/jia  for  ofir^ai^  dvTarrody/jia  for  dvr«7rooo^c5  dufdiwjfJia 
for  dcrdevsea,  (fisucr/jia  for  ^eDooc,  (though  it  is  found  also  in 
Plato.)  We  have  also  ftaGihaaa^  queen,  for  flo-attzca  or  /9a- 
cr^/c,  d~offTa<7la  for  aTcoG-caai^,  and  various  other  alterations 
of  a  like  nature.  (2.)  Words,  and  forms  of  words,  which  were 
but  rarely  used  in  classical  Greek,  or  found  only  with  the 
poets,  passed  into  common  use  in  the  later  common  dialect: 
— such  as  audevTztv,  to  govern;  dtexrwp,  a  cock;  dAexrpo- 
<po)via,  cock-crowing;  d^/^roc,  that  is  not,  or  cannot  be 
spoken,  etc.  (3.)  Certain  words  formerly  in  use  came  latterly 
to  acquire  new  meanings; — such  as  Trapaxate'cv,  in  the  sense 
of  admonishing  or  beseeching;  TzaidBuscv,  of  chastising;  zu%v.- 
ptarsw,  of  giving  thanks,  (originally,  to  be  thankful ;)  d>ayr^jLto\>^ 
of  respectable  or  noble  standing,  (originally,  graceful,  decent, 
or  becoming;)  d<f.>d()ioi;,  diminutive,  from  o^'oy,  (from  s<po)J) 
strictly,  boiled  meat,  then  any  thing  eaten  with  bread  to  give 
it  a  relish,  seasoning,  sauce — in  particular,  at  Athens,  fish, 
which  were  there  reckoned  among  the  chief  dainties — whence 
also  the  diminutive  o^dpcov  acquired  the  sense  of  fish,  as  in 


34  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

John  vi.  9,  in  Plutarch  too,  and  Athenoeus.  Under  the  same 
class  may  be  ranked  verbs  with  an  active  meaning,  which,  in 
classical  Greek,  are  used  only  intransitively;  for  example, 
fjLadqTS'jsw,  to  disciple,  instead  of  being  or  taking  the  place 
of  a  disciple;  dpeaftftevstv,  to  cause  to  triumph,  instead  of 
leading  in  triumph.  Such  transitions,  however,  from  the  re 
ceived  intransitive  to  a  transitive  sense,  should  rather  perhaps 
be  ascribed  to  the  Hebraistic  impress  of  the  New  Testament 
diction,  than  regarded  as  a  peculiarity  of  the  common  dialect 
of  the  later  Greek — the  sacred  writers  very  naturally  giving, 
in  certain  cases,  the  force  of  the  Hiphil  to  the  simple  mean 
ing  of  the  verb.  But,  undoubtedly,  traces  of  such  alterations 
are  also  to  be  found  in  other  writers.  (4.)  Words  and  phrases 
entirely  new  entered,  especially  compound  words ;  for  exam 
ple,  dttoTptosTTtffxoTroz,  dvOpcoxdpsffxoz,  j>jLOv6<pda.l/jioz,  etdcolo- 
XaTpda,  (T7iAaf%vc£e<Td(u,  with  many  others — some  peculiar  to 
the  Septuagint  and  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  others 
common  to  these  and  the  productions  in  later  Greek  generally. 
Peculiarities  of  this  class  are  distributed  by  Planck,  not  in 
aptly,  into  three  kinds: — the  first  comprehending  those  which 
were  expressly  asserted  by  the  ancient  grammarians  to  have 
belonged  to  the  common  language  of  later  times;  the  second, 
such  as  were  not  explicitly  noted  in  this  way,  but  are  only 
found  in  the  productions  which  appeared  subsequently  to  the 
Macedonian  era;  and  finally,  those  which  nowhere  occur  but 
in  the  Septuagint,  the  Apocrypha,  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  the  Greek  Fathers.  It  is  quite  possible  that, 
in  regard  to  many  of  the  words  comprised  in  each  of  these 
divisions,  the  use  made  of  them  in  the  later  Greek  writings  is 
not  absolutely  novel;  they  may  have  existed  before,  most 
likely  did  exist,  but  only  as  provincialisms,  which  had  not  re 
ceived  the  sanction  of  any  pure  writer,  or  as  expressions  so 
seldom  employed,  that  the  earlier  writings  in  which  they  oc 
curred  have  not  been  preserved  among  the  remains  of  anti 
quity.  (5.)  A  fifih  class  consists  of  words  imported  into  the 
Greek  tongue  from  the  Latin — a  natural  result  of  the  subju 
gation  of  the  Greek-speaking  countries  by  the  Romans;  of 
these  it  is  enough  to  notice  such  expressions  as  aaadpeov, 


NEW  TESTAMERR  GREEK.  35 


7,  Asf  so/v,  acxdpcoz,  etc., 
(consilium  capere,)  ^pfaaiav  douvat,  (operam  dare,)  etc.1 

2.  In  regard  to  the  other  great  class  of  peculiarities  be 
longing  to  the  common  dialect  —  those  relating  to  flexion  and 
syntax  —  Grammatical  peculiarities  —  they  also  fall  into  seve 
ral  divisions.  (1.)  We  have  peculiarities  in  the  flexion  of 
verbs,  such  as  d'jvfi  as  2d  pers.  sing,  of  indie,  pass,  for  the  re 
gular  d'jvaaac,  xddy  for  xddyffae  ;  second  aorists  with  the  ter 
minations  proper  to  the  first,  as  e7~a.  for  eJrrov,  tineaa  for  STTS- 
(Tov,  even  fjfJutpT^ae.  for  yfjbaprov\  various  endings  also  in  «v, 
instead  of  aac,  such  as  efucoxav  for  ifvo)'xaae^  stpyxav  for  etpij- 
Verbs  occur,  too,  with  double  augments,  as  rjtueUs, 
dyv,  Yjouv/jdrjcrav,  as  sometimes  also  with  Attic  writers  ; 
and  again  occasionally  without  the  augment,  according  to  the 
best  readings,  for  example,  in  Luke  xiii.  13;  2  Tim.  i.  16. 
Besides,  certain  Doric  forms  came  into  general  use  —  such  as 
Trs^ttv  for  TTS^VT^V,  dc^civ  for  dn/TQV^  ffr/fiavat  for  ar^yafvcu. 
(2.)  Peculiarities  also  appear  in  regard  to  the  gender  and 
flexion  of  nouns;  thus  £7soc,  which,  with  all  good  Greek  au 
thors,  is  masculine,  is  neuter  in  the  New  Testament  and  ec 
clesiastical  writers  —  but  occasionally  also  masculine;  Tr^oDroc 
in  like  manner  is  used  as  a  neuter;  Xep.6^  which  was  used  by 
the  Greeks  generally  as  a  masculine,  but  was  feminine  in  the 
Doric  dialect,  occurs  in  this  gender  also  in  the  New  Testa 
ment  twice,  (Luke  xv.  14,  h/wz  iayjjpd;  Acts  xi.  28,  hfibv 
fj.z?d):rjV,}  according  to  the  best  copies.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  sacred  writers  and  the  later  Greek  writers  make  fldroz, 
a  bramble,  feminine,  as  the  Greeks  generally  were  wont  to  do, 
while  the  Attics  treated  it  as  a  masculine.  The  peculiarities 
in  flexion  are  fewer;  but  %dptra,  the  later  and  rarer  form,  oc 
curs  occasionally  for  •%dpiv\  and  ids  of  the  accus.  plural  is 
always  dropt  for  £?c.  (3.)  As  further  distinctions,  there  may 
be  added  the  nearly  entire  disuse  of  the  dual,  and  a  few  pe 
culiarities  in  respect  to  syntax.  These  latter  consist  chiefly 
(to  take  the  summary  of  Winer)  "in  a  negligent  use  of  the 
moods  and  particles.  In  the  New  Testament  the  following 

1  For  a  more  complete  list,  see  Klausen,  Hermeneutik,  pp.  338  —  343;  also 
Winer's  Idioms,  §  2. 


36  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

may  be  noticed  as  examples:  orav  used  with  the  indicative 
preterite,  ee  with  the  subjunctive,  riva  with  the  indicative  pre 
sent;1  the  dispensing  with  Tv«  in  forms  like  $S)M  wa,  dzcoz 
cva,  etc.;  the  coupling  of  verbs  like  yz'jeadat  with  the  geni 
tive,  and  Trpoffxvvstv  with  the  dative ;  the  use  of  the  genitive 
infinitive,  such  as  TOO  xoestv,  beyond  the  original  and  natural 
limit,  and  of  the  subjunctive  for  the  optative  in  the  historical 
style  after  preterites;  and,  above  all,  the  rare  use  of  the  opta 
tive,  which  became  entirely  obselete  in  the  late  Greek.  Also 
a  neglect  of  the  declensions  begins  to  be  exhibited,  as  err 
xafeeC,  (after  1v  xa0£v,)  and  even  *a0e?c;  then  also  ava  e2c, 
£«£•  Trap'  £?c;  so  also  IJ.ZTGL  TOL>  ev,  and  similar  instances." 

These  constitute  the  leading  peculiarities  of  the  later  Greek, 
appearing  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  But  no 
doubt,  as  Winer  also  remarks,  this  later  and  more  popular 
dialect  had  in  some  districts  peculiarities  which  were  unknown 
elsewhere.  And  in  this  category  some  have  been  disposed  to 
place  the  expressions,  which  Jerome  called  Cilicisms  of  the 
apostle  Paul.  But  of  such  peculiarities  we  know  too  little  to 
enable  us  to  form  any  correct  judgment;  and  examples  have 
been  found  in  good  Greek  authors  of,  at  least,  some  of  Jerome's 
alleged  Cilicisms.  Winer,  however,  is  disposed  to  reckon  of 
the  class  in  question,  the  occasional  use  of  wo.  in  expressions 
where  the  pure  Greek  writers  would  have  used  the  infinitive, 
and  would  explain  it  as  a  sort  of  free  and  colloquial  usage  (§  45, 
9.)  It  is,  certainly,  difficult  to  maintain  the  strictly  telic  use 
of  i'va  throughout  the  New  Testament,  as  Meyer,  for  example, 
endeavours  to  do;  nor  can  it  be  done  without  at  times  leading 
to  strained  and  somewhat  unnatural  explanations.  That  the 
telic  force  should  be  retained  in  the  great  mass  of  cases,  and,  in 
particular,  in  the  formula  ci<a  TrtyptoOf,  we  have  no  doubt; 
for  when  so  employed  there  always  is  the  indication  of  design. 
So  also  is  there  in  various  passages,  in  which  it  does  not  at 
first  sight  appear,  but  discovers  itself  on  a  closer  inspection ; 
as  in  1  John  v.  3,  "  This  is  the  love  of  God,  wa  r«c  IKTO/MZ 

1  He  might  have  added,  what  is  still  more  peculiar,  the  occasional  use  of 
*/va  with  the  future,  as  at  1  Cor.  xiii.  3,  llev.  vi.  11,  if  these  are,  as  they  ap 
pear  to  be,  the  correct  readings. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  37 

aurou  rrjp(ii)fJ£V)* — not  that  we  do  keep,  as  a  fact — but  in  or 
der  that  we  may  keep  the  commandments  of  God,  as  a  scope 
or  aim;  the  tendency  and  striving  of  Divine  love  in  the  heart 
is  ever  in  the  direction  of  God's  commandments ;  or  again,  in 
Matt.  v.  29,  oupifepzi  yap  0ot  rW,  x.T.L,  it  is  for  thj  advan 
tage,  viz.,  to  cut  off  the  right  hand,  in  order  that  one  (one 
merely)  of  thy  members  may  perish,  and  not  thy  whole  body 
be  cast  into  hell-fire;  this,  at  least,  is  a  perfectly  admissible 
explanation.  But  there  are  others — such  as  Rev.  vi.  11; 
Matt,  xviii.  6;  Mark  vi.  25,  ix.  30 — in  which  it  is,  no  doubt, 
possible,  by  copious  supplementings,  to  bring  out  a  design, 
yet  scarcely  to  do  it  in  a  way  that  appears  consistent  with  the 
simplicity  of  the  sacred  writers. 

But  of  the  peculiarities  generally,  which  have  been  noted 
as  characterizing  the  dialect  of  the  New  Testament,  in  com 
mon  with  that  of  the  later  Greek  writers,  there  is  no  room  for 
difference  of  opinion.  They  distinguish  the  Greek  of  the  apos 
tolic  age  from  the  Greek  of  classical  times.  They  must,  there 
fore,  be  understood,  and  have  due  allowance  made  for  them  by 
all,  who  would  exhibit  the  precise  import  of  Scripture,  and 
would  even  avoid  mistakes  in  interpretation,  which  have  some 
times  been  committed  by  persons  of  high  attainments  in  clas 
sical  learning,  from  their  too  exclusive  regard  to  simply  clas 
sical  authorities. 

III.  But  another,  and  scarcely  less  important  class  of  pecu 
liarities,  must  be  taken  into  account  for  the  correct  knowledge 
and  appreciation  of  the  original  language  of  the  New  Testa 
ment — those,  namely,  arising  from  its  Hebraistic  impress.  The 
common  dialect  of  later  times  was,  in  the  case  of  the  sacred 
writings,  intermingled  with  the  free  and  frequent  use  of  forms 
derived  from  the  Hebrew,  which,  as  already  stated,  was  to  some 
extent  unavoidable  in  the  case  of  the  sacred  penmen.  Very 
commonly  the  Greek  of  the  apostolic  age,  with  the  addition 
of  this  Hebraistic  element,  is  called  Hellenistic  Greek,  from 
the  name  Hellenists,  which  was  usually  applied  to  the  Greek- 
speaking  Jews,  and  who  naturally  spoke  Greek  with  an  ad 
mixture  of  Hebrew  idioms. 
4 


38  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OP 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  while  all  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  partook  to  some  extent  of  the  Hebraistic 
influence,  some  did  so  considerably  more  than  others;  and 
they  are  by  no  means  uniform  in  the  admission  of  Hebraisms 
into  their  style.  The  Hebraistic  element  was  a  very  variable 
one  among  them.  It  differed  with  the  same  writers  in  different 
parts  of  their  writings,  as  in  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  which 
is  considerably  more  Hebraistic  than  either  his  gospel  or  epis 
tles — while  these  again  have  more  of  that  element  than  many 
other  parts  of  the  New  Testament.  The  gospel  of  St.  Luke 
is  decidedly  less  marked  with  Hebraisms  than  those  of  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Mark;  and  in  St.  Paul's  epistles  also  there 
are  diversities  in  this  respect.  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
approaches  more  nearly  to  the  classical  diction  than  any  other 
book  of  the  New  Testament.  Viewing  the  subject  generally, 
however,  and  without  reference  to  the  peculiarities  of  indivi 
dual  writers,  there  are  three  several  respects  in  which  the  He 
braistic  influence  appears  in  the  style  of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  The  first  is  of  a  somewhat  general  kind,  and  consists  of 
a  sensible  approximation  to  the  Hebrew  in  the  usual  cast  and 
complexion  of  the  style,  namely,  in  those  things  in  which  the 
Hebrew  characteristically  differed  from  the  Greek.  As  (1.) 
in  the  more  frequent  use  of  the  prepositions  for  marking  re 
lations,  which  were  wont  to  be  indicated  in  classical  Greek  by 
means  of  cases.  This  characteristic  pervades  so  much  the 
style  of  the  New  Testament,  that  particular  examples  are  al 
most  unnecessary.  But  take  one  or  two: — In  Ileb.  i.  2,  ov 
efhjxs  xtyf>w)/w»  -ai/rojy,  "whom  he  appointed  heir  of  all," 
is  classical  Greek ;  but  Acts  xiii.  22,  ty'sefisv  rov  Javio  si~ 
fiaffdea,  literally  "  raised  up  David  for  king,"  is  Hebraistic. 
Again,  TIM  fan  et-zv  ~OTS  TWV  a*fyi)MV,  u  for  to  which  of  the 
angels  said  lie  at  any  time,"  is  pure  Greek, — but  the  use  of 
the  preposition  in  the  following  expressions  is  Hebraistic,  777 
IxtexTow  $£oy,  Rom.  viii.  33;  dfavaxroyyrsT 
'JZi  Mark  xiv.  4;  dOwoz  (i~b  TO~J  aitmro^,  Matt. 
xxvii.  24,  (so  Sept.  transl.  TP  *pJ  in  2  Sam.  iii.  28;)  bfJioXoyeiv 
Iv  WJTW,  Matt.  x.  32,  etc.  (2.)  It  formed  another  marked 
difference  between  the  two  languages — the  paucity  of  con- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  39 

junctions  which  existed  in  the  Hebrew,  and  their  great  abun 
dance,  one  might  almost  say,  their  superfluity,  in  the  Greek. 
But  the  New  Testament  writers  constantly  show  an  inclina 
tion  to  adhere  to  the  simplicity  of  the  Hebrew  in  this  respect, 
rather  than  to  avail  themselves  of  the  greater  wealth  of  the 
Greek.  How  often  in  their  productions  do  we  meet  with  a 
xac,  where  we  would  rather  have  expected  an  dttd,  a  xalxep, 
or  a  xalTott  and  a  ydo  or  an  obv  where  we  would  have  looked 
for  an  c/rs/,  a  ware,  or  a  OTC,  if  judging  from  the  usage  of  clas 
sical  writers?  In  the  narrative  portions,  more  especially,  of 
the  New  Testament,  it  is  the  remarkable  nakedness  and  sim 
plicity  of  the  Hebrew  language,  as  to  conjunctions  and  other 
particles,  which  presents  itself  to  our  notice,  rather  than  the 
copiousness  of  the  Greek.  (3.)  A  further  Hebraistic  turn 
appears  in  the  frequent  use  of  the  genitive  pronouns,  instead 
of  the  possessives — <ro£,  ^o£J,  aurou,  fyjtcov,  bfjuuu,  a'jTtov.  This 
naturally  arose  from  the  inspired  writers  being  used  to  the  He 
brew  suffixes,  and  was  also  encouraged  by  a  growing  tendency 
in  the  Greek  language  itself  to  substitute  the  genitives  of  the 
personal  pronouns  for  the  possessives.  The  practice,  how 
ever,  is  greatly  more  frequent  in  the  New  Testament  and 
the  Septuagint,  than  in  other  productions  of  the  same  period. 
Indeed,  we  often  meet  with  the  personal  pronouns  generally 
in  the  Greek  Scriptures,  where  simply  Greek  writers  would 
have  altogether  omitted  them;  as  in  Gen.  xxx.  1,  ope  /we 
rsxva,  el  os  /^,  rsXsOT^ffa)  iycb\  Ex.  ii.  14,  p:q  dv^A^v  /ji*  cry 
#£/cYC>  uv  Tpbxov  dyc?/oC  %0s£  tov  Aifbittoi*)  (in  both  cases  imi 
tating  the  Hebrew;)  so  in  John  iii.  2,  ~wj~a  rd  ar^zta.  TTO^V 
d  crb  xoes'tz',  Rev.  v.  4,  xal  iyco  HxAacou  ;ro/y;  2  John  1,  ouz 
£*{io  dyo-a>  s.u  dtyOda,  etc.  (4.)  Another  pronominal  pecu 
liarity,  arising  from  assimilation  to  the  Hebrew,  is  occasion 
ally  found  in  the  New  Testament,  arid  abounds  in  the  Septua 
gint.  In  Hebrew  there  is  only  one  relative  pronoun,  "^^ 
(sometimes  abbreviated  into  #;)  and  this  without  any  distinc 
tion  as  to  number,  gender,  or  case: — on  which  account  the 
suffixes  of  the  personal  pronouns,  or  these  pronouns  themselves 
with  a  preposition,  required  to  be  added,  in  order  to  give  the 
necessary  point  and  explicitricss  to  the  reference.  Hence 


40  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

such  expressions  as  the  following:  "the  land  in  which  ye 
dwell  upon  it,"  "  the  place  in  which  ye  sojourn  in  it,"  and  so 
on.  As  the  Greek  language  possessed  a  declinable  relative 
o'c,  and  adverhs  derived  from  it,  oy,  o#cv,  fcoy,  there  was  no 
need,  when  employing  it,  to  resort  to  this  kind  of  awkward 
circumlocution.  But  those  who  had  been  accustomed  to  the 
force  and  emphasis  of  the  Hebrew  usage,  appear  still  occa 
sionally  to  have  felt  as  if  they  could  not  give  adequate  expres 
sion  to  their  mind  without  availing  themselves  of  the  Hebrew 
form.  Hence  such  passages  in  the  Septuagint  as  the  follow 
ing:  37  fy  ~9>'  *]Z  ov  xaroexsi"^  J/r'  air^c?  Gen.  xxviii.  13;  TTUZ 
ffO(fbz  rrj  dtavoia,  w  idody  G0(pia  xal  ixtarr^a  lu  auTol^,  Ex. 
xxxvi.  1;  also  Deut.  ix.  28;  Ex.  xxx.  6;  Deut.  iv.  5,  14,  etc. 
In  the  New  Testament  the  peculiarity  occurs  more  rarely; 
but  still  it  is  found,  as  in  Mark  vi.  55,  "  They  carried  about 
the  sick  on  couches,"  onou  jjxooov  on  lxs?  I<JTW\  vii.  25,  yjc 
£?/£v  TO  Bufdrptov  avrrfi  7rvei)/2a  dxdOapTou;  Rev.  vii.  2,  ofc 
eoody  ayroTc;  xii.  6,  oxoo  eysf  Ixse  ro~ov  fjTOtfJLO0[i£vov\  ver. 
14,  oxoo  Tpeysrae  lxs?  xac[>bv.  The  usage  is  found  also  in 
some  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  (Acts  xv.  17 ;  1  Pet. 
ii.  24,)  but  it  is  certainly  of  rare  occurrence  in  the  New  Tes 
tament  writings  themselves.  (5.)  A  further  distinctive  im 
press  arose  from  a  marked  difference  between  the  Hebrew  arid 
the  Greek  in  respect  to  the  tenses  of  the  verb,  giving  rise  to  a 
peculiarity  in  the  general  character  of  the  New  Testament 
style,  and  imparting  to  it  something  of  a  Hebraistic  air. 
Here  again  the  Hebrew  was  as  remarkable  for  the  fewness, 
as  the  Greek  for  the  multiplicity  of  its  forms— the  one  having 
its  simple  past  and  future  tenses,  while  the  other  had  its  pre 
sent,  imperfect,  perfect,  pluperfect,  first  and  second  aorists, 
first  and  second  futures,  and  paulo-post  future — certainly  a 
plentiful  variety,  if  not,  in  some  respects,  a  needless  redun 
dancy;  and  all  these,  again,  subject  to  variations  of  mood — 
indicatives,  subjunctives,  optatives — which  are  unknown  in 
Hebrew.  There  can  bo  no  doubt  that  the  New  Testament 
writers  were  well  acquainted  with  the  principal  tenses  of  the 
Greek  verb,  and  some  of  its  more  peculiar  modes  of  construc 
tion,  such  as  those  with  neuter  plurals,  with  wa  and  av;  at 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  41 

the  same  time,  there  are  occasional  anomalies,  with  a  mani 
fest  preference  for  the  simple  past  and  future  of  the  Hebrew, 
and,  as  in  the  latter,  a  tendency  to  use  the  future,  as  expres 
sive  of  necessity  and  continued  action,  (must  and  is  wont,) 
somewhat  more  frequently  than  is  usual  in  ordinary  Greek. 
(G.)  Once  more,  there  are  some  peculiar  case-usages,  though 
rare  in  the  New  Testament,  as  compared  with  the  Septuagint. 
The  most  noticeable  of  these  is  the  employment,  though  in  the 
New  Testament  occurring  only  in  the  Apocalypse,  of  a  kind 
of  nominative  absolute — not  such  as  is  to  be  found  in  Acts 
vii.  40,  b  yap  Mcouarfi  oyroc  o  dvOpcoTro^;,  in  which,  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  prominence  to  the  leading  noun,  the 
sentence  begins  with  it  in  the  nominative,  and  of  which  exam 
ples  are  to  be  met  with  in  ordinary  Greek — but  one  in  which 
the  nominative  comes  after,  and  stands  in  apposition  with, 
other  nouns  in  the  oblique  cases.  This  arose  from  a  close 
imitation  of  the  Hebrew,  prefixing  the  indication  of  case,  or 
the  preposition,  to  the  first  noun  in  a  sentence,  and  dropping 
it  in  those  that  followed.  Thus  at  Num.  xx.  5,  sic  rbv  TOTZOV 

TOV.TtOVrjpOV  TOUTOV'  TO7TOZ    oL    01)    ff~£ip£Tf/.t ',    Deut.   IV.   1.1,    '/.(J.I 

TO  opo^  exacero  xvpi  sco^  TOU  ovpawu'  trxoroc,  p^o^oc,  $yeMa; 
also  ver.  22;  Deut.  viii.  8,  x.  7.  Though  an  anomalous  con 
struction,  it  had  the  effect,  as  Tiersch  justly  remarks,  (Pent. 
Versione  Alexandrina,  p.  133,)  of  giving  force  and  emphasis 
to  the  terms  placed  thus  absolutely  in  the  nominative — which 
were  thereby  isolated.  This  also  is  very  decidedly  the  effect 
of  the  employment  of  the  nominative  in  Rev.  i.  4,  where  grace 
and  peace  are  sent  0.7:0  b  wu  xal  b  vjv  xal  b  Ipy^o^svoz',  retain 
ing  in  the  nominative  the  words,  which  express  the  Lord's 
eternal  Being,  and  so  taking  them,  as  it  were,  out  of  the  com 
mon  category  of  declinable  nouns,  and  placing  them  in  an  in 
dependent  position.  Other  examples  occur  in  Rev.  ii.  20,  iii. 
12.  In  the  same  connexion  may  be  mentioned  a  kind  of  He 
braistic  extension  of  the  accusative  of  place,  this  accusative 
being  sometimes  coupled  with  a  following  genitive,  in  a  way 
not  usual  with  the  Greeks;  of  which  we  have  such  examples 
in  the  Old  Testament  as  Deut.  xi.  30,  ovx  coob  TWJTO.  rrep.av 
b~i<Tcoy  bobu  dufff^oji'  'fjAioo^  i.  19;  Ex.  xiii.  17. 
4* 


42  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

And  in  the  New  Testament,  the  peculiar  expression  in  Matt. 
iv.  14,  fy  Na<p  6  a^el  //,  bobv  OoJ.dcrcrr^,  which  has  its  parallel 
in  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  referred  to,  and  should 
not  have  been  regarded  in  so  exceptional  a  light  as  it  is  by 
Winer,  (Gr.  §  32,  6.)  But  such  peculiarities  exercise  compa 
ratively  little  influence  on  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament. 
2.  Secondly,  the  Hebraistic  cast  of  the  New  Testament 
style  appears  in  the  use  of  words  and  phrases,  which  have 
their  correspondence  only  in  the  Hebrew,  but  are  not  found 
in  profane  Greek  writers,  whether  of  the  earlier  or  of  the  later 
periods.  Among  these,  certain  words  might  be  included,  which 
are  transferred  from  the  Hebrew  and  other  Oriental  languages 
into  the  text  of  the  New  Testament:  —  such  as  dp  fa,  dfaoocbv, 
d/r/yy,  7T#/?aoc«roc,  /'sevj>«,  OCLTU.V,  etc.  Terms  of  this  sort  are 
merely  Oriental  words  in  Greek  letters,  or  with  a  Greek  ter 
mination  ;  and  it  is  by  a  reference  to  their  Oriental  usage  that 
their  meaning  is  to  be  determined.  It  is  not  these,  however, 
so  much  that  we  have  in  view  under  the  present  division,  as 
words  and  phrases  which  are  strictly  Greek  expressions,  but 
expressions  thrown  into  a  Hebraistic  form,  and  conveying  a 
sense  somewhat  different  from  what  would  naturally  be  put 
upon  them  by  a  simply  Greek  reader.  There  is  a  considera 
ble  number  of  this  description,  —  among  which  are  sir  in  the 
sense  of  rr:  or  xpcoroz,  according  to  the  Septuagint  rendering 
of  "inx  (e?>  fpafjifiaT6U£,  Matt.  viii.  19, 
—  fiiav  for  npdirqv,)  f  jyrsev  rr/v 
t,  Odvarov  ros^v,  nsptTtOTStV  Ivconiov  r/voc,  Ttoc&v 

v  rrvo     ffdc;  xal 


a!/m,  etc. 

To  refer  more  particularly  to  one  or  two  examples,  the 
phrase  Trdffa  <raoc,  for  all  men,  mankind  at  large,  is  quite  a 
Hebraism,  being  a  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  "^3-72)  by 
two  terms,  which  in  the  one  language,  as  well  as  the  other, 
signify  all  flesh  —  while  still  native  Greek  writers  never  used 
ados  in  the  sense  of  men,  and  such  an  expression,  if  employed 
by  them,  would  have  meant,  not  all  mankind,  but  the  whole 
fL'sh,  (of  a  man  or  an  animal,  as  it  might  happen.)  Some 
times  the  Hebraism  is  further  strengthened  by  the  addition  of 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  43 

a  negative,  in  a  manner  different  from  the  practice  of  good 
Greek  writers.  In  Hebrew,  "^2-^3  ^  not  all  flesh,  is  equi 
valent  to  no  flesh,  and  in  this  same  meaning  oi>  Traaa  adpq  is 
used  in  New  Testament  Scripture ;  as  when  our  Lord  says, 
Matt.  xxiv.  22,  "  If  the  days  should  not  be  shortened,  oux  av 
iucodf]  -flcra  craps,"  no  flesh  should  be  saved  ;  or  St.  Paul,  1 
Cor.  i.  29,  OTZCOZ  JJ.T]  xaoy^v/jTcu  r.dcra  crdpz,  so  that  no  flesh 
might  glory.  Such  phrases  are  to  be  explained  by  coupling 
the  negative  with  the  verb,  and  regarding  the  two  together  as 
predicating  the  negation  or  want  of  something — the  all  com 
prehending  the  entire  circle  or  genus  to  which  such  predicate 
extends.  Thus,  in  the  sentence  last  quoted,  the  not  being  in 
a  condition  to  glory  is  the  thing  predicated,  and  the  rcaaa 
ffdp~,  the  all  flesh,  which  follows,  denotes  the  sphere  of  being 
to  which  the  predicate  applies — the  entire  compass  of  huma 
nity.  So  that,  when  rightly  viewed,  the  expression  presents 
no  material  difficulty,  though  it  is  a  form  of  speech  not  na 
tive  to  the  Greek,  but  imported  into  it  from  the  Hebrew. 

The  Vulgate  has  not  been  sufficiently  observant  of  this  pe 
culiar  idiom;  hence  it  renders  the  passage  in  Matt,  non  salva 
ficret  omnis  caro,  and  that  in  1  Cor.  ut  non  glorietur  omnis 
caro.  Our  translators,  however,  in  the  authorized  version 
have  commonly  attended  to  it,  and  given  the  correct  render 
ing — though  still  in  one  case  they  appear  to  have  missed  it. 
The  passage  we  refer  to  is  1  John  ii.  19,  where  the  apostle  is 
speaking  of  those  who  had  once  belonged  to  the  true  church, 
but  had  since  fallen  into  Gnostic  errors,  and  assumed  an  an- 
tichristian  position :— "  They  went  out  from  among  us,  but 
they  were  not  of  us ;  for  if  they  had  been  of  us,  they  would 
have  continued  with  us;  but  that  (the  sentence  here  is  plainly 
elliptical,  and  we  must  again  supply  '  they  went  out'  that) 
they  might  be  made  manifest,  ort  G'JX  sew  xdwcsz  is  fyjL&v" — 
that  they  were  not  all  of  us,  our  version  has  it — but  the  apos 
tle  had  already  said  of  them,  wholly  and  absolutely,  that  they 
were  not  of  us;  and  it  would  be  strange,  if  now,  at  the  close, 
he  should  have  introduced  a  limitation,  and,  when  speaking 
of  the  evidence  of  their  having  assumed  an  antichristian  posi 
tion,  or  being  in  deadly  heresy,  should  have  used  terms  that 


44  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

were  applicable  only  to  a  portion  of  them.  The  terms,  how 
ever,  become  quite  plain,  if  understood  in  conformity  with  the 
idiom  now  under  consideration ;  i.  e.,  if  the  negative  and  the 
verb  (o>jx  etffe)  are  taken  together,  as  constituting  the  predi 
cate,  and  the  jravrsc  following  as  indicating  the  extent  of  its 
application — embracing  the  totality  of  the  parties  spoken  of. 
Their  going  out  from  the  company  of  the  faithful,  the  apostle 
then  affirms,  shows  that  they  are  not — all  of  them — of  us; 
i.  e.,  that  none  of  them  are  of  us;  the  whole  went  out,  that 
they  might  be  seen — one  and  all — not  to  be  of  the  true  church 
of  Christ.  Such,  substantially,  is  the  view  adopted,  not  only 
by  several  foreign  commentators,  but  also  in  the  English  An 
notations  of  1645,  by  Hammond,  Guyse,  Whitby,  Peilc,  and 
others. 

This,  however,  is  rather  a  digression,  and  we  return  to  our 
proper  subject — simply  remarking  further,  in  respect  to  the 
second  class  of  Hebraisms,  that  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
words  and  phrases  comprised  in  it,  are  still  to  be  taken  in  their 
ordinary  sense,  but,  at  the  same  time,  with  such  reference  to 
the  Hebrew  use  and  application  of  them,  that  in  the  sense  ne 
cessary  to  be  put  upon  them  they  must  be  regarded  as  He 
braisms.  For  example,  in  the  common  expression  at/jta  $x%st»9 
to  pour  'out,  or  shed  blood,  what  is  really  meant,  is  not  the 
simple  shedding  of  blood,  but  the  pouring  out  of  this  unto 
death — the  words  being  those  used  in  rendering  the  Hebrew 
PJ  W? — the  usual  sacrificial  formula  for  taking  the  life  of  an 
animal  victim,  when  presenting  it  to  God.  It  hence  passed 
into  a  common  phrase  for  taking  the  life  of  any  one;  and  in 
the  lips  of  a  Jew,  the  phrase  naturally  became  more  peculiar 
ly  and  distinctly  indicative  of  death,  than  it  should  have  done 
when  uttered  by  a  Greek.  In  like  mariner,  in  the  use  of  the 
word  oi/o/jia,  in  a  great  variety  of  expressions,  such  as  "  call 
ing  upon  the  name,"  or  doing  any  thing  in  the  name  of  an 
other,  "hallowing  God's  name,"  "believing  on  the  name  of 
Christ,"  "  trusting  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  and  such  like — 
while  the  worm  precisely  corresponds  to  the  Q®  in  Hebrew, 
and  name  in  English  to  both,  it  is  still  only  through  the  He 
brew  usage  that  we  can  get  at  the  proper  import  of  the  ex- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  45 

pressions.  The  Hebrews  were  wont  to  regard  the  name  of  an 
individual,  as,  what  it  doubtless  originally  was,  the  index  to 
the  nature ;  and  when  the  primary  name  failed  properly  to 
do  this,  they  very  commonly  superseded  it  by  another,  which 
yielded  a  more  significant  or  fitting  expression  of  the  indivi 
dual  properties.  Hence,  with  them,  the  name  was  very  much 
identified  with  the  person,  as,  on  the  other  side,  the  person 
was  very  often  contemplated  in  the  light  of  the  name.  Among 
the  Greeks  the  significance  of  names  never  assumed  the  same 
place  that  it  did  among  the  Hebrews ;  they  were  regarded 
more  as  arbitrary  signs,  having  their  chief  use  in  distinguish 
ing  one  person  or  one  object  from  another;  and  consequently 
the  same  identification  did  not  prevail  in  the  ordinary  Greek 
usage,  as  in  the  Hebrew,  between  the  name,  and  the  person 
or  properties  of  the  individual.  In  dealing  with  such  expres 
sions,  therefore,  as  those  specified  above,  we  must  have  re 
course  to  the  Hebrew,  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  proper  import. 
3.  There  is  still  a  third  respect,  in  which  the  Hebraistic 
cast  of  the  New  Testament  dialect  appears;  viz.,  in  the  for 
mation  of  derivatives  from  words  belonging,  in  the  sense  em 
ployed,  to  the  Hebrew,  and  not  to  the  Greek.  For  example, 
the  word  tfxaj/oa/ov,  the  rendering  of  the  Septuagint  for  '^PP 
a  stumbling-block,  or  offence,  is  the  root  of  a  verb  found  only 
in  the  New  Testament,  axavdati^to,  to  stumble,  or  cause  to 
stumble,  (corresponding  to  ^^on  bab:  ;)  ff^^y^i^effOaf  from 
{T-Mf%va  (as  in  Hebrew  Ern  and  O'prn  ) — dyadsfjtaTc^ffOac 
from  dvddsijia,  and  so  on.  In  such  cases  one  is  thrown  en 
tirely  upon  Hebrew  ideas  and  usages;  and  from  these  it  is 
necessary  to  ascertain  and  determine  the  precise  meaning  to 
be  attached,  if  not  to  the  original  noun,  at  least  to  the  verb 
derived  from  it. 

IV.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  from  the  occurrence  of  such  He 
brew  or  Aramaic  peculiarities  as  we  have  referred  to,  that  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament  adds  to  the  later  Greek — the 
common  Hellenic  dialect — elements  derived  from  the  verna 
cular  language  of  the  sacred  writers,  on  account  of  which  it 
may  justly  be  denominated  a  peculiar  idiom.  It  exhibits  sin- 


46  THE  CHARACTERISTICS,  OF 

gle  Greek  words,  which  are  nowhere  found  in  Greek  writers 
out  of  Palestine;  it  exhibits  also  Hebrew  and  Chaldaic 
phrases,  expressed  in  Greek  terms,  but  conveying  a  sense  dif 
ferent  from  what  a  simply  Greek  reader  would  naturally  have 
put  upon  them ;  and,  finally,  it  exhibits  in  the  grammatical 
construction  various  features  of  a  Hebraistic  kind; — all  ne 
cessarily  requiring,  in  order  to  attain  to  a  correct  interpreta 
tion  of  New  Testament  Scripture,  an  acquaintance  with  the 
Hebrew  as  well  as  with  the  Greek  languages,  and,  in  particular, 
with  the  usages  established  by  the  Septuagint  Version  of  Old 
Testament  Scripture.  But  there  are  two  important  conside 
rations,  which  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  connexion  with 
those  Hebraisms — the  one  having  respect  to  their  number, 
and  the  other  to  the  proper  mode  of  dealing  with  them. 

(1.)  In  the  first  place,  they  are  not  nearly  so  numerous  as 
they  were  at  one  time  represented  to  be ;  nor  much  more  nu 
merous  than  was  rendered  necessary  by  the  circumstances  of 
the  writers.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  them  are  so  essen 
tially  connected  with  the  position  of  the  writers,  as  not  only 
trained  under  the  economy  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  but 
called  also  to  unfold  truths  and  principles,  which  were  but  the 
proper  growth  and  development  of  such  as  belonged  to  it,  that 
they  could  not  justly  have  been  dispensed  with.  They  entered, 
by  a  kind  of  moral  necessity,  into  the  cast  of  thought  and  ex 
pression  adopted  by  the  apostles  of  the  New  Testament.  And 
hence  also  they  occur  less  frequently  in  grammatical  con 
structions  than  in  other  respects,  and  only  so  as  to  impart  to 
the  style,  in  that  particular  respect,  an  occasional  Aramaic 
colouring.  The  Greek  syntax  differs  in  many  things  from  the 
Hebrew;  the  one  has  its  own  marked  and  peculiar  characteris 
tics,  as  well  as  the  other;  yet  in  most  of  these  we  find  the 
New  Testament  writers  regularly  accommodating  themselves 
to  the  foreign  idiom — as  in  the  distinctive  use  of  imperfects  and 
aorists,  in  the  coupling  of  neuter  plurals  with  a  verb  in  the 
singular,  in  the  construction  of  verbs  with  ay,  in  the  attraction 
of  the  relative,  etc.  It  may  not  be  improper  to  point  to  an 
example  or  two,  in  a  single  line,  of  this  conformity  to  the 
foreign  idiom: — in  the  discriminating  use  of  the  aorist  and 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  47 

perfect  tenses — the  aorist  as  denoting  the  historic  past,  and 
the  perfect  as  denoting  the  past  in  its  relation  to  the  present, 
the  past-continuing  with  its -effects  and  consequences  to  the 
present.  Even  St.  John,  who  has  often  been  treated  as  igno 
rant  of  the  commonest  Greek  idioms,  we  find,  at  the  very 
beginning  of  his  Gospel,  carefully  observing  this  distinction, 
when  he  says  of  the  work  of  the  Logos,  e^evsro  ouos  ev  o 
-fefovsv,  nothing  whatever  that  has  come  to  be,  and  still  is  in 
being,  was  made  without  Him.  So  also  in  Col.  i.  16,  point 
ing  to  the  act  of  creation  by  Christ  in  the  indefinite  past,  iv 
auTw  ixTtady  ra  Trocvra;  but  when  Christ's  continued  relation 
to,  and  interest  in,  what  was  created,  is  in  view,  then  the  apos 
tle  changes  from  the  aorist  to  the  perfect,  ra  Travrec  ol  aurou 
xal  s;c  O:JTOU  IxTca-cae.  Another  striking  example  of  a  simi 
lar  change  may  be  seen  in  ch.  iii.  3  of  the  same  epistle,  in  tho 
dxsOdvsTS  used  of  the  old  life  once  and  for  ever  put  away,  and 
the  xixpunrat.  of  the  new  begun  at  conversion,  but  continuing 
still  on.  In  connexion  with  such  discriminating  employments 
of  the  aorist  and  perfect  tenses,  it  is  justly  remarked  by  the 
late  Professor  Scholefield,  that  the  English  translation  is  often 
obscured  by  failing  to  mark  the  distinction  as  observed  in 
the  original,  and  consequently  inserting  or  omitting  at  the 
wrong  place  the  auxiliary  have. — (Hints  for  Improvements  in 
the  Authorized  Version,  Preface  X.) 

In  respect,  however,  to  the  excessive  multiplication  of  He 
braisms,  Titmann  very  justly  says,  in  his  Synonyms,  ii.  p. 
163,  4J  Many  expressions  in  the  New  Testament  have  been 
stamped  with  the  name  of  Hebraisms,  for  no  other  reason 
whatever  than  because  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  wri 
ters  of  the  New  Testament  have  imitated  the  Hebrew  mode 
of  speaking;  just  as  if  they  could  not  have  derived  those  forms 
from  the  like  usage  of  the  Greek  language,  which  they  were 
writing.  Many  Hebraisms  have  thus  been  pointed  out  by 
Yorstius,  Leusden,  and  others,  which  might  with  equal  justice 
be  called  Hellenisms.  Because,  forsooth,  they  appear  in  the 
New  Testament,  in  writers  ^Eftpaf^QVTtd  they  are  Hebraisms; 
while  the  same  things,  when  found  in  Demosthenes,  Thucy- 
dides,  Xenophon,  or  Polybius,  are  pronounced  to  be  good  and 


48  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OP 

elegant  Greek.  Thus,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  use  of  the 
demonstrative  pronoun  without  apparent  necessity  after  a  noun 
or  relative  pronoun,  has  been  regarded  as  a  Hebraism,  inas 
much  as  the  Hebrews  do  indeed  use  this  construction,  as  also 
the  Arabs,  Syrians,  Greeks,  and  Romans,  (we  might  add  the 
Germans  and  English.)  Still  that  cannot  surely  be  reckoned 
as  a  Hebrew  idiom,  which  is  also  employed  by  the  best  writers 
of  other  nations."  He  proceeds  to  give  various  examples  of 
the  usage, — among  which  are,  from  Cicero,  Illud  quod  supra 
scripsi,  id  tibi  confirmo ;  from  Sallust,  Sed  urbana  plebes,  ea 
vero  prseceps  ierat;  from  Thucydides,  "  the  most  Attic  of  all 
Greek  writers,"  TW  os  c IxTioxpaTzt  OVTC  Trept  TO  Jyhov,  d>c 
O.UTW  jj-ffeMrj;  and  concludes  by  saying,  "The  construction 
in  all  these  usages  is  evidently  the  same  as  in  Matt.  iv.  16, 
viii.  5;  John  xv.  2,  xviii.  11." 

Michaelis  remarked  sharply,  but  not  without  cause,  on  this 
tendency  to  discover  Hebraisms  in  New  Testament  Scripture, 
"  It  is  extraordinary,  that  those  very  persons  who  are  least 
acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  are  the  most  inclined  to  discover 
Hebraisms;  and  it  has  been  as  fashionable,  as  it  is  convenient, 
to  ascribe  the  difficulty  of  every  passage  to  an  Oriental  idiom." 
(Intro,  iv.  6.)  Yet  he  has  not  himself  altogether  escaped  the 
contagion  ;  for  we  find  him,  in  the  same  chapter,  ranking  some 
things  as  Hebraisms,  and  giving  them  on  that  ground  a  false 
rendering,  which  ought  to  be  taken  in  their  strictly  Greek 
meaning;  for  example,  etz  v2*oc,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  54,  which  he 
designates  "a  harsh  Hebraism"  signifying  "for  ever,"  while 
really  the  proper  import  is  best  given  by  the  literal  rendering, 
"into  victory,"  i.  e.,  towards  this  as  the  end  aimed  at — death 
being  viewed  as  the  great  enemy,  with  whose  swallowing  up 
the  final  victory  comes.  Gerard,  (Bib.  Criticism,  p.  54,)  as 
usual,  follows  Michaelis  in  this;  and,  along  with  many  others 
then  and  since,  he  also  gives  frf/M,  in  the  sense  of  thing,  as  a 
Hebraism,  in  such  passages  as  Luke  i.  37,  ii.  15;  Acts  v.  32. 
But  it  always  b^ars  the  sense  of  word  or  saying,  or  of  things 
only  in  so  far  as  they  have  become  matters  of  discourse. 
Thus,  at  Luke  i.  37,  the  exact  rendering  undoubtedly  is,  "No 
word  shall  be  impossible  with  God;"  and  hence  the  verb  is 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  49 

in  the  future,  ddvvanjffsc,  pointing  to  the  futurity  of  the  ac 
complishment,  as  compared  with  the  period  when  the  word 
was  spoken. 

(2.)  Then,  while  we  should  thus  beware  of  multiplying  He 
braisms  in  the  New  Testament  beyond  what  really  exist,  we 
should,  in  the  second  place,  also  beware,  in  handling  what 
really  are  such,  and  the  peculiarities  generally  of  the  New 
Testament  dialect,  of  setting  them  down  as  mere  extravagan 
cies,  or  barbarous  departures  from  a  proper  diction.  On  the 
contrary,  we  should  endeavour  to  ascertain  the  idea  in  which 
they  originated,  and  get  at  the  precise  shade  of  meaning,  or 
aspect  of  a  subject,  which  they  set  before  us.  This  is  the 
course,  as  Winer  remarks,  which  has  latterly  been  taken  by 
grammarians  in  their  investigations  concerning  the  Greek 
language:  "  The  idea  which  gave  rise  to  each  particular  form 
has  been  accurately  apprehended,  and  its  various  uses  reduced 
to  the  primary  signification.  The  language  thus  becomes  a 
directly  reflected  image  of  the  Greekthought,  as  a  living  idiom. 
One  does  not  stop  at  the  mere  externals,  but  there  is  a  refe 
rence  of  each  form  and  inflexion  of  the  language  to  the  think 
ing  soul,  and  an  effort  to  apprehend  it  in  its  existence  in  the 
mind  itself.  For  a  long  time  Biblical  philologists  took  no  no 
tice  of  these  elucidations  of  Greek  grammar  and  lexicography. 
They  followed  Viger  and  Storr,  and  separated  themselves  en 
tirely  from  the  profane  philologists,  under  the  impression  that 
the  New  Testament  Greek,  being  Hebraistic,  could  not  be  an 
object  of  such  philological  investigations.  No  one  believed 
that  the  Hebrew,  like  every  other  language,  admitted  and  re 
quired  a  rational  mode  of  treatment.  The  rational  view  ia 
now  gaining  ground.  It  is  believed  that  the  ultimate  reasons 
of  the  phenomena  of  the  Hebrew  must  be  sought  out  in  the 
nation's  modes  of  thought;  and,  above  all,  that  a  plain,  sim 
ple  people  could  not  contravene  the  laws  of  all  human  lan 
guage.  It  is  no  longer,  therefore,  considered  proper  to  give 
a  preposition  diverse  meanings,  according  to  one's  own  plea 
sure,  in  a  context  superficially  examined.  Nor  must  it  be 
supposed  that  a  Hebrew,  instead  of  i  this  is  my  brother,'  could 
say  pleonastically,  i  this  is  of  my  brother,'  or  l  this  is  in  the 
5 


50  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

wise  man,'  instead  of  l  this  is  a  wise  man;'  but  the  origin  of 
changes  so  contrary  to  rule  must  be  sought  for  in  the  speaker's 
mode  of  thought,  as  with  every  rational  being  each  deviation 
has  its  reason." — (Idioms,  pp.  19,  20.) 

This,  it  will  be  understood,  is  said  simply  of  the  manner  in 
which  deviations  of  the  kind  here  referred  to  should  be  con 
sidered  and  explained;  and  determines  nothing  as  to  what 
may  be  called  the  comparative  pureness  and  elegance  of  the 
diction,  or  the  reverse.  In  some  of  them,  possibly,  the  thought 
expressed  may  be  cast  into  a  form,  which  is  not  justified  by 
the  usage  of  the  most  correct  writers,  nor  accordant  with  the 
native  idioms  of  the  language ;  but  possibly  also  there  may 
be  no  real  departure  from  these; — and  the  apparent  devia 
tion,  or  peculiarity,  may  lie  in  the  thought  expressed  being 
somewhat  different  from  what  a  superficial  consideration,  or  a 
common  point  of  view,  might  be  apt  to  suggest.  Such,  no 
doubt,  will  be  found  sometimes  to  be  the  case.  But  the  ques 
tion  at  present  has  respect,  not  simply,  nor  indeed  so  much  to 
the  purity  of  the  diction,  as  to  the  proper  and  rational  mode 
of  explaining  its  real  or  apparent  peculiarities.  These  should, 
in  every  case,  be  considered  with  reference  to  the  specific  cir 
cumstances  and  mental  habits  of  the  writer.  And  had  they 
been  so — had  due  regard  been  paid  to  the  considerations  which 
have  just  been  advanced — not  only  would  many  senseless  and 
improper  laxities  have  been  spared  from  our  grammars,  lexi 
cons,  and  commentaries,  but  the  received  text  also  of  the  New 
Testament  and  our  authorized  version  would  have  been  in  a 
better  state  than  they  at  present  are.  Schleusner's  Lexicon 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  Mackriight's  Commentary  on  the 
Epistles,  may  be  referred  to  as  specimens,  out  of  the  more 
learned  class,  which  egregiously  err  in  the  respect  now  men 
tioned,  more  especially  in  the  laxity  with  which  they  render 
the  prepositions  and  the  particles  of  the  New  Testament  Greek. 
For  example,  in  Schleusner,  the  prepositions  ecz  and  lv  have 
ascribed  to  them,  the  one  24,  the  other  no  fewer  than  30,  dis 
tinct  uses  and  meanings;  and,  though  Macknight  does  not 
carry  it  quite  so  far,  yet,  from  the  diverse  and  disconnected 
senses  he  puts  upon  them  in  his  Preliminary  Essays,  it  seems 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  51 

as  if,  when  handled  by  a  Hellenistic  Jew,  these  prepositions 
might  express  almost  any  relation  whatever.  Et^,  as  it  hap 
pens,  may  be  into  or  in,  concerning  or  with,  against,  before, 
by,  in  order  to,  among,  at,  towards,  or  it  may  stand  without 
any  definite  meaning — as  a  mere  expletive — and  had  better 
been  wanted.  So  also  with  Jv.1 

Of  course,  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  as  in  all 
popular  productions,  there  is  a  considerable  freedom  in  the 
use  of  such  parts  of  speech — especially  in  what  are  called  preg 
nant  constructions  and  current  phrases — yet  never  without  a 
respect  to  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  word — never  with 
a  total  abnegation  and  disregard  of  this.  Thus,  in  the  New 
Testament,  as  with  Greek  writers  generally,  the  preposition 
e«C  is  not  unfrequently  coupled  with  verbs  of  rest,  and  hence 
comes  to  be  rendered  as  if  it  were  sv: — as  Matt.  ii.  23,  xarw- 
%'fjazy  ecz  xohv  lefO/u£vr}v  Na^aped-;  Acts  viii.  40,  0£Utf?r0f 
tbpidy  etz  "A'COTOV,  John  i.  18,  6  &v  etc  rov  xofocov  TOL>  Ilar- 
/>6c«  But  in  all  such  cases  there  is  an  implied  reference  to 
the  preceding  motion  towards  the  place  indicated,  or  some  sort 
of  terminal  relation  to  it.  Thus,  in  the  examples  noticed,  we 
must  explain,  in  the  first,  having  gone  so  far  as  to  the  city 
called  Nazareth,  having  entered  into  it,  he  dwelt  there;  in 
the  second,  Philip  was  found  as  far  as  Azotus,  carried  thither, 
and  so  at  it;  in  the  third*  He  that  is  (viz.  set,  who  has  His 
proper  place  of  being)  into  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  so  close, 
so  deep  into  the  personal  indwelling,  and  union  with,  the  Fa 
ther.  In  none  of  the  cases  is  there  properly  an  interchange 
of  one  preposition  for  another;  but  a  complex  thought  is  ut 
tered  in  an  abbreviated  and  elliptical  form. 

In  many  cases  of  this  description,  however,  it  is  only  by  a 
comment  that  the  full  and  proper  meaning  can  be  brought  out, 
and  in  a  simple  translation  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  keep  up 
the  peculiarity  of  the  original.  But  there  are  others,  in  which 
that  was  perfectly  possible,  and  in  which  our  authorized  ver 
sion  has  suffered  from  the  too  prevalent  notion  of  Hebraistic 
laxity — nor  has  even  the  received  text  of  the  original  escaped 

1  This  looseness  has  also  been  countenanced  to  some  extent  by  Erncsti,  and 
still  more  by  his  foreign  and  English  annotators. — See  Bib.  Cabinet,  vol.  iv. 
153,  154. 


52  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OP 

occasional  corruptions.  Under  those  of  the  latter  description 
•we  may  point  to  Rev.  ii.  14,  \vhere  the  undoubtedly  correct 
reading  of  what  is  said  of  Balaam  is,  oc  Ioc3a<rxsi>  rco  Ba/.ax 
ftaJiecu  crxdvoaAov  luwr^w  rwv  uiwv  'IffpcojA.',  but  which,  from 
the  apparent  anomaly  of  the  verb  diddaxa)  being  coupled  with 
a  noun  in  the  dative,  for  its  direct  object,  (as  was  supposed,) 
the  resort  was  made  by  grammarians  and  commentators  to 
Hebrew  usage,  according  to  which  it  was  alleged  the  dative 
was  put  for  the  accusative;  and  certain  copyists  went  a  step 
further,  and,  taking  the  dative  for  an  error,  substituted  the 
accusative  in  its  place,  which  is  the  reading  of  the  received 
text — rbv  Da/.ax.  It  is  not  a  Hebraism,  however,  to  couple 
such  a  verb  with  the  dative ;  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  usage 
here  entirely  correspond ;  and  that  John  was  perfectly  cogni 
sant  of  the  Greek  usage  is  manifest  from  his  coupling  the  same 
verb  with  an  accusative  in  ver.  20,  as  in  every  other  instance, 
in  which  he  has  placed  a  noun  in  regimen  with  it,  except  the 
one  before  us,  (John  vii.  35,  viii.  2,  28,  ix.  34,  xiv.  26;  1 
Joh'n  ii.  27,  thrice.)  This  sufficiently  shows,  that  the  dative 
in  Rev.  ii.  14  is  put,  not  by  oversight  or  from  the  usage  of  a 
foreign  idiom  merely,  but  on  purpose;  that  it  is  what  gram 
marians  call  the  dativus  commodi,  indicating  that  what  was 
done,  was  done,  not  upon  the  individual  concerned,  but  in  his 
interest — not  that  Balaam  taught»Balak,  (as  in  the  English 
version,)  but  that  he  taught  for  Balak,  on  his  account  and  in 
his  behalf,  to  cast  a  stumbling-block  before  the  children  of 
Israel.  We  are  not,  in  short,  told  whom  he  taught,  though 
we  know  from  the  history  it  was  the  people  of  Balak,  but/or 
whose  advantage  he  did  so ;  he  taught  in  the  service  of  the 
king  of  Moab,  not  of  the  God  of  Israel. 

We  must  refer  to  a  few  other  passages,  in  which,  though 
the  received  text  remains  correct,  the  authorized  version  has 
missed  the  precise  shade  of  meaning  by  giving  way  to  the  idea 
of  laxity  on  the  part  of  the  original  writers.  Thus,  in  the 
prayer  of  the  converted  malefactor,  Luke  xxiii.  42,  Remember 
me  when  Thou  comest  £v  rfi  ftturdeia  0ou — not  into  Thy  king 
dom,  which  might  seem  to  point  to  the  glory  into  which  the 
Lord  was  presently  going  to  enter — but  in  Thy  kingdom,  viz., 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  53 

TV  hen  the  time  comes  for  Thee  to  take  to  Thyself  Thy  great 
power  and  to  reign  among  men ;  for  this  future  manifestation 
of  glory  was  undoubtedly  what  the  faith  of  the  penitent  man 
anticipated  and  sought  to  share  in,  not  the  glory  which  lay 
within  the  vail,  which  only  the  answer  of  Christ  brought  within 
the  ken  of  his  spiritual  vision.  The  same  preposition  has  also 
been  unhappily  translated  in  another  important  passage — Phil, 
ii.  10,  rlua  iv  TOJ  oyojj.aTc  y Ir^aoit — not  at,  but  in  the  name  of 
Jesus,  every  knee  should  bow;  in  it  as  the  ground  and  prin 
ciple  of  the  act,  not  at  its  mere  enunciation.  Again  in  Eph. 
iii.  19,  "That  ye  may  be  filled  eiz  nu.v  TO  ittyptopa  TOO  0soi>," 
not  strictly  with,  which  would  imply  an  infinite  recipiency, 
but  into  all  the  fulness  of  God — lifted,  like  empty  vessels, 
into  the  boundless  pleroma  of  Godhead,  that  ye  may  take  to 
the  full  satisfaction  of  your  desires,  and  the  measure  of  your 
capacity.  So,  again,  in  2  Pet.  i.  3,  where  God  is  said  to  have 
given  to  us  all  things  pertaining  to  life  and  godliness,  through 
the  knowledge  of  Him  xaAsffavroz  fjplz  dta  oof^c  *o-t  'd/?snyc> 
who  called  us — not,  as  in  our  version,  to  glory  and  virtue, 
which  puts  a  most  arbitrary  and  unauthorized  sense  upon  the 
dca,  and  converts,  besides,  the  means  into  the  end — but  by  or 
through  glory  and  virtue — namely,  the  glory  and  virtue,  the 
divine  energy  exhibited  in  the  way  and  manner,  in  which  we 
are  called  of  God,  in  consequence  of  which,  as  is  presently 
added,  there  have  also  been  given  to  us  exceeding  great  and 
precious  promises;  the  promises  are  so  great  and  precious, 
because  the  call  conducting  to  them  was  so  distinguished  by 
divine  power  and  glory.  The  very  next  verse  but  one  of  the 
same  epistle,  ver.  5,  furnishes  another  example  of  unfortunate 
laxity  in  the  translation,  which  in  consequence  misses  the 
precise  shade  of  thought  expressed  in  the  original :  the  words, 
7.0.1  WJTO  TorJTo  3s,  rendered,  "  And  besides  this," — altogether 
sinking  the  adversative  particle  ok,  and  mistaking  also  the 
force  of  the  adverbial  accusative  aJjTo  TO'JTO.  The  object  of 
the  clause,  is  partly  to  suggest  a  difference,  and  partly  to 
mention  an  agreement,  between  what  precedes  and  what  fol 
lows:  "And  on  this  very  account  indeed,"  or  "but  for  this 
same  reason,  give  all  diligence,"  etc. 

5* 


54  TUE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

These  are  only  a  few  specimens  out  of  many,  that  might  be 
adduced,  of  the  evil  that  too  long  and  generally  prevailed,  of 
supposing  that  the  sacred  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were 
so  Hebraistic,  or  otherwise  so  peculiar  in  their  use  of  words 
and  phrases,  that  any  sort  of  license  might  at  times  be  taken 
with  their  language.  It  is  but  rarely  that  the  evil  discovers 
itself  in  the  authorized  version,  and  within  narrow  limits,  com 
pared  with  what  has  appeared  often  in  later  versions  and  com 
mentaries.  But  it  is  still  occasionally  found  there;  and  spe 
cial  notice  has  been  taken  of  it,  not  for  the  purpose  of  dispa 
raging  that  version,  which,  as  a  whole,  is  so  admirable,  but 
in  order  to  show,  how  even  there,  when  the  proper  line  has 
been  deviated  from,  and  with  the  best  intentions,  the  effect 
has  only  been  to  substitute  one  shade  of  meaning  for  another 
— a  meaning  that  could  only  at  first  view  have  seemed  the 
natural  and  proper  one,  for  another  more  accordant  both 
with  the  idioms  of  the  language  and  with  the  truth  of  things. 

V.  To  pass  now,  however,  from  the  real  or  alleged  Hebra 
isms  of  the  New  Testament,  we  may  mention  as  another  cha 
racteristic  feature  of  its  diction,  that  which  it  occasionally  de 
rives  from  the  new  ideas  and  relations  introduced  by  the  gos 
pel.  These  of  necessity  called  into  existence  a  class  of  ex 
pressions,  not  in  themselves  absolutely  new,  but  still  fraught 
with  an  import  which  could  not  attach  to  them  as  used  by  any 
heathen  writer,  nor  even  in  the  production  of  any  Greek- 
speaking  Jew  prior  to  the  birth  of  Christ.  With  the  marvel 
lous  events  of  the  gospel  age,  a  fresh  spring-time  opened  for 
the  world;  old  things  passed  away,  all  things  became  new; 
and  the  change  which  took  place  in  the  affairs  of  the  Divine 
kingdom  could  not  fail  to  impress  itself  on  those  words  and 
forms  of  expression,  which  bore  respect  to  what  had  then  for 
the  first  time  come  properly  into  being.  In  so  far  as  the  terms 
employed  might  embody  the  distinctive  facts  or  principles  of 
Christianity,  their  former  and  common  usage  could  only  in 
part  exhibit  the  sense  now  acquired  by  them ;  for  the  full 
depth  and  compass  of  meaning  belonging  to  them  in  their  new 
application,  we  must  look  to  the  New  Testament  itself,  com 
paring  one  passage  with  another,  and  viewing  the  language 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  55 

used  in  the  light   of  the  great  things  which  it  brings  to  our 
apprehension. 

When  handling  such  terms  as  those  now  referred  to,  it  is 
peculiarly  necessary  to  understand  and  apply  aright  the  fun 
damental  principles  of  language,  as  to  the  relation  in  which 
the  spoken  word  stands  to  the  internal  thought,  of  which  it 
serves  as  the  expression.  "  Language,"  it  has  been  justly 
said,1  "  is  the  outward  appearance  of  the  intellect  of  nations: 
their  language  is  their  intellect,  and  their  intellect  their  lan 
guage;  we  cannot  sufficiently  identify  the  two.  .  .  .  Un 
derstanding  and  speaking  are  only  two  different  effects  of  the 
same  power  of  speech."  In  confirmation  of  this  statement, 
we  may  point  to  the  twofold  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  /o^oc, 
which  denotes  alike  the  internal  and  the  external  reason — 
either  reason  as  exercising  itself  and  forming  conceptions  in 
the  mind  itself,  (Ao;'oc  cvora^sroc,)  or  reason  coming  forth  into 
formal  proposition,  and  embodying  itself  in  the  utterance  of 
human  speech,  (^o;-oc  TipoyoprAoz) — comprising,  therefore,  in 
one  term,  what  the  Latins,  with  their  more  objective  and  re 
alistic  tendencies,  took  two  words  to  express — ratio  and  oratio. 
Now,  as  the  external  reason,  or  reason  embodied  in  the  form 
of  spoken  or  written  words,  ought  to  be  the  exact  image  of 
the  internal,  a  correct  representation  of  the  thoughts  and  con 
ceptions  of  the  mind,  so,  in  proportion  as  these  thoughts  and 
conceptions  vary,  the  language  employed  to  express  them 
must  present  a  corresponding  variation ;  and  if  the  same  terms 
are  retained,  which  may  have  been  previously  in  use,  there 
must  be  infused  into  them  a  somewhat  new  and  more  specific 
import.  To  some  extent  this  is  done,  even  in  comparatively 
common  circumstances,  and  as  the  result  of  individual  thought 
and  feeling;  for  speech,  as  has  also  been  well  said  by  the 
writer  just  referred  to,  "  acquires  its  last  definiteness  only 
from  the  individual.  No  one  assigns  precisely  the  same  mean 
ing  to  a  word  that  another  does,  and  a  shade  of  meaning,  be 
it  ever  so  slight,  ripples  on,  like  a  circle  in  the  water,  through 
the  entirety  of  language."  That  is — for  the  sentiment  must 
be  understood  with  such  a  limitation — it  will  so  perpetuate 

1  William  Von  Hurnboldt,  quoted  in  Donaldson's  Cratylus,  p.  56. 


56  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OP 

and  diffuse  itself,  if  circumstances  favour  it,  and  the  particu 
lar  shade  of  meaning  introduced  is  one  not  confined  to  too 
narrow  a  sphere  of  thought,  not  merely  local  or  temporary, 
but  requiring,  by  the  exigencies  of  human  thought,  to  have 
an  abiding  place  in  its  medium  of  communication.  Whenever 
that  is  the  case,  it  will  certainly  "ripple  on  like  a  wave,  widen 
ing  and  enlarging  its  range,  till  it  has  embraced  the  whole 
field. 

Such  peculiarly  has  been  the  case  in  respect  to  those  terms, 
which  the  great  events  of  gospel  history  served  to  bring  into 
general  use,  and  through  which  expression  is  given  to  some 
of  the  more  distinctive  ideas  and  relations  of  gospel  times. 
Among  the  foremost  of  these  is  the  phrase,  jlaathia  TOO  6sou, 
or  riov  oupav&v — a  phrase  composed  of  words  perfectly  fami 
liar  to  all  accustomed  to  the  Greek  tongue,  but,  as  applied  to 
the  state  of  things  introduced  by  Christ,  and  growing  out  of 
the  events  of  His  earthly  career,  expressive  of  ideas  essentially 
novel  to  heathen  minds,  and  but  partially  possessed  even  by 
Jewish.  We  can  have  no  doubt  about  its  origin,  and  the  rea 
son  of  its  employment  in  this  connexion.  It  points  back  to 
those  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  promise  was 
made  of  a  king  and  kingdom,  that  should  unite  heaven  and 
earth,  God  and  man,  in  another  way  than  could  be  done  by 
a  merely  human  administration;  and  especially  to  the  prophe 
cies  of  Daniel,  in  ch.  ii.  and  vii.,  where,  after  a  succession  of 
kingdoms,  all  earthly  in  their  origin,  and  ungodly  in  their 
spirit  and  aims,  the  Divine  purpose  was  announced,  of  a  king 
dom  that  should  be  set  up  by  the  God  of  heaven,  and  that 
should  never  be  destroyed — a  kingdom  imaged  by  one  like  a 
Son  of  man  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  destined  to 
be  possessed  by  the  saints  of  the  Most  High.  Some  notion 
might,  therefore,  be  obtained  of  the  import  of  the  expression, 
by  those  who  were  acquainted  with  Old  Testament  Scripture ; 
yet  only  a  vague  and  imperfect  one,  as  the  precise  nature  of 
the  kingdom,  and  its  distinctive  characteristics  could  only 
be  correctly  understood,  when  they  were  brought  clearly  to 
light  by  the  facts  and  revelations  of  the  gospel.  The  general 
unbelief  and  apostacy  of  the  Jewish  people,  after  Christ  came, 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  57 

showed  how  little  previous  intimations  had  served  to  bring 
them  properly  acquainted  with  the  nature  of  the  kingdom ; 
and  both  that,  and  the  palpable  errors  and  mistakes  regard 
ing  it,  which  frequently  discovered  themselves  even  among 
the  followers  of  Christ,  but  too  clearly  proved  how  difficult  it 
was  for  the  minds  of  men  to  rise  to  a  just  apprehension  of 
the  subject.  The  difficulty,  no  doubt,  chiefly  arose  from  the 
imperfect  earthly  forms  under  which  the  prophetic  Spirit  had 
presented  it  to  their  view,  and  from  the  not  unnatural  ten 
dency  in  their  minds  to  shape  their  idea  of  it  too  much  after 
the  monarchies  and  governments  of  this  world,  which  kept 
them  from  realizing  the  change  in  spirit,  aim,  and  administra 
tion,  involved  in  the  divine  character  of  its  Head.  But  as 
soon  as  the  true  idea  came  to  be  realized,  and  the  kingdom 
in  its  real  properties  began  to  take  root  in  the  world,  as  a  na 
tural  result,  the  phrase  paaiAeia  TOO  0sou,  which  gave  ex 
pression  to  the  idea,  became  informed,  we  might  say,  with  a 
new  meaning,  and  bore  a  sense  which  it  were  vain  to  look  for 
any  where  but  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  Even 
there  the  sense  which  it  bears  is  not  quite  uniform;  for  in  a 
subject  so  complex,  and  branching  out  into  so  many  interests 
and  relations,  the  expression  could  not  fail  to  be  used  some 
times  with  more  immediate  reference  to  one  aspect  of  the 
matter,  and  sometimes  to  another.  This  is  clearly  the  case 
in  the  parables,  where  a  manifold  variety  is  found  in  the  images 
employed  to  represent  the  kingdom  of  God,  with  the  view 
of  presenting  under  diverse,  though  perfectly  consistent  and 
harmonious  representations,  a  comprehensive  exhibition  of 
the  truth  respecting  it: — some  (as  in  the  parable  of  the  mus 
tard-seed)  pointing  more  to  its  growth  from  small  beginnings; 
others,  (as  in  the  parables  of  the  ten  virgins  and  the  husband 
man,)  to  its  final  issues  in  evil  and  good,  according  to  the  part 
taken  on  earth  by  its  members;  others,  again,  to  its  internal 
principles  of  administration,  (as  the  parable  of  the  talents,  or 
of  the  labourers  in  the  vineyard;)  to  its  external  means  and 
agencies,  with  the  diversified  results  springing  from  them  (as 
the  parables  of  the  sower,  the  tares  and  wheat,  the  fishing- 
net;)  or  to  the  relation  of  the  members  of  the  kingdom  to  its 


58  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

Divine  Head,  and  to  each  other,  (as  the  parable  of  the  unfor 
giving  servant.)  But  with  all  this  variety  in  the  use  of  the 
expression,  two  ideas  are  never  lost  sight  of,  which  in  truth 
form  the  two  most  prominent  things  connected  with  it,  viz., 
those  of  a  Divine  king  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  human  sub 
jects  on  the  other — the  one  ordering,  providing,  directing, 
and  controlling  all;  the  other,  according  to  the  line  of  con 
duct  they  pursue,  receiving  at  His  hand  blessing  or  cursing, 
life  or  death. 

If  these  remarks  are  kept  in  view,  there  will  appear  no  need 
for  dividing  (as  Dr.  Campbell,  for  example,  does,  in  his  preli 
minary  Dissertations  and  Translation  of  the  Gospels)  and  ren 
dering  ftaffdsla  iCov  o?jpavtov  sometimes  the  reign  of  heaven, 
and  sometimes  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This  is  not  only  un 
necessary,  but  fitted  also  to  mislead;  since  it  gives,  whenever 
the  word  reign  is  used  instead  of  kingdom,  only  a  partial  and 
imperfect  representation  of  the  proper  idea.  It  was  one  of 
the  prevailing  tendencies  of  Campbell's  mind — a  mind  cer 
tainly  of  great  penetration,  of  remarkable  clearness  of  per 
ception,  of  much  philosophical  acumen,  and  singular  perspi 
cacity  in  thought  and  diction — partly  in  consequence  of  these 
very  excellencies,  it  was  a  tendency  in  his  mind  to  make  pre 
cision,  rather  than  fulness  of  meaning  his  aim ;  and  for  the 
sake  of  that  precision,  both  in  his  preliminary  Dissertations 
and  his  Notes,  he  often  seizes  only  a  part  of  the  meaning, 
couched  under  a  particular  phrase  or  expression,  and  exhibits 
that  as  the  whole.  This  is,  indeed,  the  most  characteristic 
and  general  defect  of  his  work  on  the  Gospels,  which,  notwith 
standing  that  defect,  however,  and  a  few  others  that  might  be 
named,  is  well  entitled  to  a  perusal.  It  was  the  tendency  now 
referred  to  which  led  Dr.  Campbell  to  substitute  so  often  the 
word  reign  for  that  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  on  the  ground, 
that  the  expression  most  commonly  relates  to  that  "sort  of 
dominion,"  as  he  terms  it,  which  is  understood  by  the  dispen 
sation  of  grace,  brought  in  by  the  Gospel ;  while  the  phrase, 
"kingdom  of  heaven,"  he  thinks,  properly  indicates  "the  state 
of  perfect  felicity  to  be  enjoyed  in  the  world  to  come."  Now, 
this  is  to  divide  what  Scripture  seeks  to  preserve  entire,  and 


NEW  TESTAMENT  GREEK.  59 

fixes  the  mind  too  exclusively  on  a  part  merely  of  the  idea, 
which  it  ought  to  associate  with  the  expression.  It  was  never 
intended  that  we  should  think  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  as 
having  to  do  merely  with  the  inner  man,  and,  for  the  present, 
laying  claim  only  to  a  sway  over  the  thoughts  and  affections 
of  the  mind.  His  kingdom,  according  to  its  scriptural  idea, 
is  no  more  a  divided  empire,  than  He  is  Himself  a  divided 
person.  It  comprehends  the  external  as  well  as  the  internal 
— although,  from  having  its  seat  in  the  latter,  it  is  most  fre 
quently  depicted  with  special  relation  to  this;  but  still  it  com 
prehends  both,  and  embraces  eternity  as  well  as  time — though 
its  condition,  now  on  this  side,  now  on  that,  may  at  times  be 
brought  most  prominently  into  view.  But  even  in  those  pas 
sages,  in  which  it  points  to  the  present  mixed  state,  and  im 
perfect  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  kingdom,  we  should 
take  nothing  from  the  full  import  of  the  expression,  but  retain 
it  in  its  completeness;  as  it  serves  to  keep  before  the  Church 
the  idea  of  a  kingdom  in  the  proper  sense,  and  to  prompt  her 
to  long  for,  and  aim  at,  its  realization. 

We  have  dwelt  at  the  greater  length  on  this  particular  ex 
ample,  as  it  is  one  of  considerable  moment,  and  it  affords  an 
intelligible  and  ready  explanation  of  the  peculiarity  with  which 
it  has  been  here  associated.  But  it  is  only  one  of  a  class  be 
longing  to  the  same  category :  such  astf/o>v  p.e)JMy,  ocxatouada:, 
dcxacoa'jvy,  euafj'eAc^cO)  £coij  and  ddvaroc;  (understood  spiri 
tually,)  xtfjffez,  pwrrgpiov,  VO/MZ,  TrapdxtyToz,  Tziattz,  nMjp&fJMi, 
T.fy1**  7JU'{na lw">  WKMWdW&Cj  (JJU%MO~.  All  these,  and,  perhaps, 
several  others  that  might  be  named,  are  used  in  New  Testa 
ment  Scripture  with  the  same  radical  meaning,  indeed,  as 
elsewhere;  but,  at  the  same  time,  with  so  much  of  a  specific 
character  derived  from  the  great  truths  and  principles  of  the 
Gospel,  that  their  New  Testament  import  must  be  designated 
as  peculiar. 

VI.  Once  more,  it  may  be  given  as  a  still  further  note  of 
distinction  characteristic  of  the  New  Testament  Greek,  that, 
while  there  are  peculiarities  of  tttfe  several  kinds  already  de 
scribed,  distinguishing  the  language  as  a  whole,  there  are  also 


60  THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF 

peculiarities  distinguishing  the  Greek  of  one  writer  from  that 
of  another — words  and  phrases  used  by  one  and  not  used  by 
the  others,  or  used  in  a  manner  peculiar  to  himself.  There  is 
an  individual,  as  well  as  a  general,  impress  on  the  language. 
And  if,  as  in  the  class  last  mentioned,  a  special  regard  must 
be  had  to  the  revelations  and  writings  of  the  New  Testament 
as  a  whole,  there  should,  in  the  class  now  under  consideration, 
be  a  like  regard  had  to  the  writings  of  the  particular  person 
by  whom  the  expressions  are  more  peculiarly  employed. 

The  terms  belonging  to  this  class  are  not  of  so  extensive  a 
range  as  some  of  the  preceding  ones;  and  they  are  to  be  found 
chiefly  in  two  writers  of  the  New  Testament — the  Apostles 
Paul  and  John.  In  the  writings  of  John  we  meet  with  vari 
ous  expressions,  which,  as  used  by  him,  are  almost  peculiar 
to  himself:  such  as  dJby'0£«z,  in  the  specific  sense  of  denoting 
what  is  emphatically  the  truth — the  truth  of  the  Gospel ;  xoesiv 
TTJV  dJ:rflz>a\>,  in  the  sense  of  giving  practical  exhibition  of  that 
truth ;  yzwrflvpat  dvwdsu,  or  Ix  TOL>  6i.o~j ;  b  /o;-oc,  as  a  perso 
nal  designation  of  the  Saviour  in  respect  to  his  divine  nature 
and  relationship ;  6  /o^oc  r^r  Cw^»  °  //ovofsvijc  wfoc,  6  ~ac>d- 
x/^roc,  doyrcov  TOU  xdffjuo'j,  ep%s06ai  ecz  TOV  xofffjtoy,  etc.  In 
like  manner,  there  is  a  set  of  phrases  nearly  as  peculiar  to  the 
Apostle  Paul:  such  as  fpd/jtfjta  put  in  contrast  to  5rvsD//a,  d~o- 
QvfjG'/.ziv  Ttvi,  dexaeowrdeUj  eo^a  trapxoc,  xatvrj  xrlffiz,  irfojpwfjui 
roy  0£oD,  1,6 uo~  lv  ror:  //s/s<7.',  a-cavpovadcu  mi,  ffTor/£a  (taken 
in  a  figurative  sense  of  rudimental  principles,)  r^rror,  etc. 

We  refrain  at  present  from  entering  on  the  examination  of 
any  of  these  peculiar  forms  of  expression — the  greater  part  of 
which,  viewed  simply  in  themselves,  properly  belong  to  some 
of  the  preceding  classes,  and  are  now  mentioned  only  as  con 
nected  with  a  further  peculiarity — their  exclusive  or  prevail 
ing  use  by  particular  writers.  And  as  they  undoubtedly  ac 
quired  this  further  peculiarity  from  some  mental  idiosyncrasy 
on  the  part  of  the  person  using  them,  or  from  some  determi 
native  influences  connected  with  the  circumstance  of  his  posi 
tion,  these  ought,  as  far  as  possible,  to  be  ascertained,  that 
the  several  expressions  ma^  be  considered  from  that  point  of 
view,  which  was  held  by  the  writer,  and  may  be  interpreted 
in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  thought  under  which  he  wrote. 


SOURCES  FOR  EXPLAINING  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.         61 


SECTION  THIRD. 

COLLATERAL  SOURCES  FOR  DETERMINING  THE  SENSE  AND  EXPLAIN 
ING  THE  PECULIARITIES  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE. 

OUR  attention  has  hitherto  been  confined  to  the  original 
language  itself  of  the  New  Testament,  and  to  the  things  which 
concern  both  its  general  character  and  its  more  distinctive 
peculiarities.  In  considering  these,  it  has  been  implied,  ra 
ther  than  formally  stated,  that  for  the  correct  and  critical 
study  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  there  must  have 
been  acquired  a  competent  acquaintance,  not  only  with  the 
common  dialect  of  the  later  Greek,  but  also  with  the  idioms 
of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  with  that  combination  of  Greek 
and  Hebrew  idioms,  which  appears  in  the  Septuagint  version 
of  the  Old  Testament.  In  this  version  all  the  leading  pecu 
liarities,  as  well  of  the  later  Greek  as  of  the  Hebraistic  style, 
which  have  been  noticed  in  connexion  with  the  language  of 
the  New  Testament,  are  to  be  found;  and  some  of  them,  those 
especially  of  the  Hebraistic  class,  in  greater  abundance,  and 
in  bolder  relief,  than  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  regard  to  the  earlier  portions  of  the  Septuagint,  this  has 
been  exhibited  with  scholarly  acumen  and  precision  in  a  late 
publication  by  the  younger  Thiersch  (De  Pentateuchi  Versione 
Alexandrina,  Libri  Tres,  1851,)  to  which  reference  has  already 
been  made.  Considerable  use  has  long  been  made  of  the 
materials  supplied  by  the  Hebrew  Bibles  and  the  Septuagint 
for  illustrating  the  diction  of  the  New  Testament  in  some  of 
the  more  learned  commentaries;  particularly  those  of  Grotius, 
Wetstein,  Koppe,  Kuinoel,  and  the  more  recent  commentaries 
both  of  this  country  and  the  Continent.  Some  additional  ser 
vice  has  been  rendered  in  the  same  line  by  the  Editio  Helle- 
nistica  of  the  New  Testament  of  Mr.  Grinfield,  which  is  de 
voted  to  the  single  purpose  of  collecting  under  each  verse  ex 
amples  of  the  same  or  of  similar  words  and  phrases  occurring 
in  the  Septuagint,  and  other  writings  of  the  period.  The 
Lexicons  also  of  Biel  arid  Schleusner,  and,  above  all,  the 
6 


62  COLLATERAL  SOURCES  FOR  EXPLAINING 

Grammar  of  Winer,  have  contributed  to  establish  and  eluci 
date  the  connexion  between  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament 
and  of  the  Septuagint,  and  the  characteristics  of  the  dialect 
in  which  they  are  written.  All  this,  however,  has  respect  to 
the  elements  of  the  subject  under  consideration;  it  bears  di 
rectly  upon  the  form  and  structure  of  the  language  itself  of 
the  New  Testament;  so  that,  without  a  certain  knowledge  of 
the  one,  there  can  be  no  accurate  and  discriminating  know 
ledge  of  the  other.  But  there  are  also  certain  collateral  sources 
of  information,  from  which  incidental  and  supplementary  aid 
may  be  derived,  to  illustrate  both  the  phraseology  and  .some 
of  the  more  characteristic  notices  and  allusions  of  New  Testa 
ment  Scripture.  These  we  must  now  briefly  describe,  with 
the  view  of  indicating  the  nature  and  amount  of  the  aid  to  be 
derived  from  them,  before  entering  on  the  examination  of  spe 
cific  rules  and  principles  of  interpretation.1 

I.  The  sources  that  may  be  said  to  lie  nearest  to  the  inspired 
•writings,  and  which  should  first  be  named,  are  the  contempo 
rary  Jewish  writers,  who  used  the  Greek  language.  These 
are  simply  two — Philo  and  Josephus;  the  former,  there  is  rea 
son  to  believe,  born  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  before  Christ, 
though  he  appears  to  have  outlived  the  Saviour;  and  the  other 
fully  as  much  later.  The  birth  of  Josephus  is  assigned  to  A.D. 
37.  In  a  strictly  exegetical  respect,  little  help,  comparatively, 
is  to  be  obtained  from  the  first  of  these  writers.  Philo  was 
much  more  of  a  philosopher  than  a  religionist;  and  living  in 
Alexandria,  and  ambitious  mainly  of  ranking  with  its  men  of 
higher  culture,  both  his  sentiments  and  his  style  stood  at  a 
wide  distance  from  those  peculiar  to  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament.  Even  in  respect  to  the  points,  in  which  his 
writings  bear  a  kind  of  formal  resemblance  to  those  of  the 
Apostle  John,  in  the  use  of  a  few  terms  relating  to  the  Being 
and  operations  of  Godhead,  no  real  advance  has  been  made 

1  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  by  those  who  are  entering  on  the  prosecution 
of  such  studies,  that  the  Septuugint  is  far  from  being  a  close  translation,  and 
that  those  commentators  and  grammarians,  who  have  proceeded  on  the  prin 
ciple  of  always  finding  in  it  the  key  to  the  exact  meaning  of  particular  words 
and  phrases,  are  by  no  means  10  be  trusted. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITINGS.  63 

by  the  efforts  that  have  been  put  forth  to  interpret  the  one 
by  the  other.     It  has  turned  out  rather — the  more  carefully 
the  subject  has  been  examined — that  as  their  conceptions  of 
divine  things  were  essentially  different,  so  their  language,  even 
when  it  seems  most  nearly  coincident,  is  by  no  means  agreed ; 
and  little  more  has  resulted  from  such  comparative  investiga 
tions  than  learned  disputations  about  the  meanings  of  words 
and  phrases,  which  sometimes  look  as  if  they  yielded  what  was 
sought,  but  again  deny  it.     As  for  the  principles  of  interpre 
tation  adopted  by  Philo,  they  have,  indeed,  a  close  enough 
affinity  with  what  is  found  in  many  of  the  Fathers  of  the  third 
and  fourth  centuries,  but  are  by  no  means  to  be  identified  with 
those  sanctioned  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.     Such 
deliverances,  therefore,  as  the  following  of  Ernesti,  which  has 
often  in  substance  been  repeated  since — "Philo  is  particularly 
useful  in  illustrating  the  allegorical  and  mystical  reasonings, 
so  much  used  by  St.  Paul  "l — must  be  rejected  as  groundless, 
and  fitted  to  lead  in  a  wrong  direction.     The  statement  is  made 
by  -Ernesti  with  apparent  moderation,  as  it  is  again  in  recent 
times  by  Klausen,2  with  the  view  simply  of  pointing  attention 
to  Philo  as  a  master  in  that  kind  of  allegorizing,  which  was 
pursued  especially  by  the  Apostle  Paul — not  that  Paul  was 
actually  conversant  with  the  writings  of  the  Alexandrian,  and 
followed  in  his  wake.     This  latter  is  noted  by  Ernesti  as  a 
fanciful  extreme,  advanced  by  Wetstein  and  some  others,  and 
is  declared  to  be  destitute  of  historical  support;  unnecessary 
also,  since  both  Paul  and  Philo  but  imbibed  the  spirit  of  their 
age,  and  adopted  a  style  of  exposition  which  was  already  com 
mon.     In  opposition  to  this  view,  we  maintain,  that  the  alle- 
gorizings  of  Philo  and  those,  as  well  of  the  Jewish  cabalists 
who  preceded,  as  of  the  Christian  theosophists  who  followed, 
belonged  to  another  class  than  the  so-called  allegorical  inter 
pretations  of  the  New  Testament.     The  latter  are  not  alle 
gorical,  in  the  distinctive  sense  of  the  term;  they  are  not,  as 
allegorical  meanings  properly  are,  adaptations  of  matters  in 
one  sphere  of  things  to  those  of  another  essentially  different, 
and  consequently  arbitrary  and  uncertain.     On  the  contrary, 
1  Institutes,  P.  III.,  ch.  8.  2  Hermeneutik,  pp.  96,  97. 


64  COLLATERAL  SOURCES  FOR  EXPLAINING 

they  are  applications  of  the  truths  and  principles  embodied 
in  the  institutions  or  events  of  preparatory  dispensations  to 
the  corresponding  events  or  institutions  of  an  ultimate  dispen 
sation,  to  which,  from  the  first,  they  stood  intimately  related. 
In  short,  they  are  typical  explanations,  as  contradistinguished 
from  allegorical,  and  have  nothing  about  them  of  the  caprice 
and  extravagance  to  which  the  others  are  liable.  But  as  we 
have  investigated  this  elsewhere,1  it  is  needless  to  do  more 
here  than  mark  the  confusion  of  ideas,  on  which  this  assimila 
tion  of  Paul  and  Philo  is  grounded,  and  declaim  against  the 
dishonour  which  is  thereby  done  to  the  character  of  the  apo 
stolic  teaching. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  Philo  is  concerned,  there  is  little  to  be 
reaped  from  his  writings  for  the  exposition  of  New  Testament 
Scripture;  his  language,  his  style  of  thought,  and  his  manner 
of  dealing  with  Old  Testament  Scripture,  all  move  in  different 
channels  from  those  followed  by  the  apostles;  and  his  refer 
ences  also  to  existing  manners  and  circumstances  are  extremely 
few  and  unimportant.  In  this  last  respect,  however,  his  con 
temporary  Josephus  may  justly  be  said  to  compensate  for  the 
defect  of  Philo.  A  man  of  affairs,  and  bent  on  transmitting 
to  posterity  an  account  of  what  he  knew  and  understood  of  the 
events  of  his  times,  as  well  as  of  former  generations,  his  writings 
abound  with  details,  which  are  calculated  to  throw  light  on,  at 
least,  the  historical  parts  of  the  New  Testament.  In  the 
words  of  Lardner,  who  has  done  more  than  any  other  person 
to  turn  to  valuable  account  the  notices  of  Josephus,  "He  has 
recorded  the  history  of  the  Jewish  people  in  Judea  and  else 
where,  arid  particularly  the  state  of  things  in  Judea  during 
the  ministry  of  our  Saviour  and  His  apostles ;  whereby  he  has 
wonderfully  confirmed,  though  without  intending  it,  the  ve 
racity  and  the  ability  of  the  evangelical  writers,  and  the  truth 
of  their  history."2  It  was  for  the  richness  of  materials  in 
this  respect,  contained  in  the  writings  of  Josephus,  that  Mi- 
chaelis  strongly  recommended  a  diligent  study  of  his  works, 
from  the  beginning  of  Herod's  reign  to  the  end  of  the  Jewish 

1  Typology  of  Scripture,  vol.  i.,  o.  I.,  and  App.  B.,  \  1. 

2  Works,  vi.  p.  502. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITINGS.  65 

Antiquities,  and  spake  of  him  as  furnishing  the  very  best  com 
mentary  on  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts.1  Of  course,  a  com 
mentary  so  furnished  could  only  have  been  of  the  external 
and  historical  kind,  which  too  much  accorded  with  the  taste 
of  Michaelis  ;  but,  in  a  revelation  pre-eminently  historical,  the 
incidental  light  and  attestations  derived  from  such  a  source 
are  not  to  be  undervalued;  and  though,  doubtless,  the  imper 
fections  in  Josephus'  accounts,  and  what  probably  we  may 
call  his  occasional  errors  and  studied  omissions  (in  respect  to 
the  subject  of  Christianity,)  have  given  rise  to  some  perplexi 
ties,  yet  his  writings,  on  the  whole,  have  contributed  greatly 
to  elucidate  and  confirm  the  narratives  of  the  New  Testament. 
His  style,  however,  which  he  aimed  at  having  as  pure  as  possi 
ble,  is  of  little  service  in  illustrating  the  more  peculiar  idioms 
of  Scripture;  though,  in  regard  to  some  of  those  common  to 
it  and  the  later  Greek  dialect,  and  the  meaning  also  of  par 
ticular  words  and  phrases,  considerable  benefit  has  accrued 
from  the  study  of  his  productions.  Two  works,  of  about  the 
middle  of  last  century  (the  Observationes  of  Krebs,  and  the 
Specilegium  of  Ottius.)  were  specially  directed  to  the  elucida 
tion  of  the  New  Testament  from  this  source;  and  many  of  the 
examples  adduced  by  them,  with  others  gathered  by  subse 
quent  inquirers,  have  found  their  way  into  recent  grammars 
and  commentaries. 

It  is  proper  to  add,  that  there  are  questions  on  which  even 
the  silence  of  Josephus  is  instructive,  and  fairly  warrants 
certain  conclusions  respecting  the  existing  state  of  things  in  the 
apostolic  age — for  example,  on  the  subject  of  Jewish  proselyte- 
baptism;  since,  treating,  as  he  does,  of  matters  bearing  upon 
the  reception  of  proselytes,  and  remaining  silent  regarding 
any  such  practice,  this,  coupled  with  the  like  silence  of  Scrip 
ture,  is  well  nigh  conclusive  on  the  subject.  (But  see  Disser 
tation  on  f$axTt£a)  in  Part  II.)  Again,  there  are  other  points, 
chiefly  of  a  formal  or  legal  description,  on  which  the  testimony 
of  Philo  and  Josephus  runs  counter  to  that  delivered  in  the 
later  Jewish  writings;  and  in  such  cases,  we  need  scarcely 
say,  the  testimony  of  those  who  lived  when  the  Jewish  institu- 

1  Introduction,  vol.  iii.  P.  1,  c.  9. 

6* 


66  COLLATERAL  SOURCES  FOR  EXPLAINING 

tions  were  actually  in  force  is  entitled  to  the  greater  -weight. 
Nothing  of  this  sort,  however,  has  to  be  noted  in  connexion 
with  New  Testament  affairs. 

II.  The  next  source  of  illustrative  materials  that  falls  to  be 
noticed,  is  that  supplied  by  the  Jewish  Rabbinical  writings — 
writings  composed  near  to  the  apostolic  age,  though  subsequent 
to  it,  and  composed,  not  in  Greek,  but  in  modern  Hebrew. 
These  writings  consist  of  two  main  parts,  the  Mischna  and  the 
Gemara, — the  Mischna  being  the  text,  viz.,  of  the  traditions 
about  the  law,  and  the  Gemara  the  comments  of  learned  men 
upon  it.  Two  sets  of  comments  grew  up  around  it, — the  one 
earlier,  produced  by  the  Palestinian  Jews,  and  called,  along 
with  the  Mischna,  the  Jerusalem  Talmud;  the  other,  origi 
nating  with  the  Chaldean  Jews,  and  forming,  with  the  Mischna, 
the  Babylonian  Talmud.  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  the 
ascertained  or  probable  dates  of  these  productions,  in  order  to 
determine  their  relation  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  Mischna  being  a  compilation  of  traditional  lore,  may,  of 
course,  in  many  of  its  parts,  be  really  more  ancient  than  the 
Gospels;  but  as  it  was  not  committed  to  writing  till  the  latter 
half  of  the  second  century  after  Christ,  and  probably  even  later 
than  that,1  there  can  be  no  certainty  as  to  the  actual  existence  of 
particular  portions  of  it  before  that  period;  and  still  more  does 
this  hold  with  the  Talmudical  comments,  which  were  not  pro 
duced,  the  one  till  300,  and  the  other  till  600  years  after  Christ. 
"Besides,  undoubted  traces  exist  in  these  writings  of  references  to 
the  events  of  Gospel  history,  showing  the  posteriority  of  some 
of  the  things  contained  in  them  to  that  period;  and  if  some, 
who  can  tell  how  many!  They  were,  it  must  be  remembered, 
the  productions  of  men  who  wrote  in  the  profoundest  secrecy, 
and  who,  though  not  formally  assuming  a  hostile  attitude  to 
wards  the  Christian  cause,  could  not  but  be  conscious  of  a 
certain  influence  from  the  great  events  of  the  Gospel  and  the 
writings  of  apostolic  men. 

There  are  few  ancient  writings  extant,  perhaps,  that  con 
tain  a  larger  proportion  of  what  may  be  called  rubbish  than 
these  Talmudical  productions.  Lightfoot  speaks  of  the  stu- 

1  See  Frideaux,  Connexion,  at  B.  c.  44G;  Lightfoot's  Opera,  i.,  p.  3G9. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITINGS.  G7 

penda  inanitas  et  vafrities  of  the  subjects  discussed  in  them, 
and  says  of  them  generally,  rntgis  ubique  scatent.  There  is 
the  more  reason  that  we  should  cherish  feelings  of  gratitude* 
and  admiration  toward  him,  and  such  men  (in  particular  the 
Buxtorfs,  Bochart,  Vitringa,  Surenhusius,  Schoettgen,)  who, 
with  the  simple  desire  of  finding  fresh  illustrations  of  the 
meaning  of  sacred  Scripture,  have  encountered  the  enormous 
labour,  and  the  painful  discipline,  of  mastering  such  a  litera 
ture,  and  culling  from  it  the  comparatively  few  passages  which 
bear  on  the  elucidation  of  the  Word  of  God.  They  have  un 
doubtedly,  by  so  doing,  rendered  important  service  to  the 
cause  of  Biblical  learning;  although  it  must  also  be  confessed, 
that  a  very  considerable  proportion  of  the  passages  adduced 
might  as  well  have  been  left  in  their  original  quarries,  and 
that  some  have  been  turned  to  uses  which  have  been  preju 
dicial,  rather  than  advantageous,  to  the  right  understanding 
of  Scripture.  The  special  benefit  derived  from  them  has  been 
in  respect  to  ancient  rites  and  usages,  the  meaning  of  Ara 
maic  expressions  occasionally  occurring  in  New  Testament 
Scripture,  the  synagogal  institution  and  worship,  and  the  state 
of  things  generally  in  the  closing  period  of  the  Jewish  com 
monwealth,  to  which  so  many  allusions  are  made.  But  in 
respect  to  the  points  in  which  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Tea-? 
lament  may  be  said  to  differ  from  those  of  the  Old — the  doc 
trines,  for  example,  relating  to  the  person  of  Messiah,  His 
peculiar  office  and  work,  the  characteristics  of  the  Christian 
community,  etc. — nothing  definite  can  be  learned  from  the 
Rabbinical  sources  under  consideration.  Endless  quotations 
have  been  made  from  them,  apparently  favouring  the  Christian 
views;  but  it  were  quite  easy  to  match  them  with  others  of  an 
opposite  description ;  so  that  all  belonging  to  this  department 
was  evidently  but  idle  talk  or  free  speculation.  In  regard 
also  to  the  treatment  of  Scripture — especially  the  method  of 
expounding  and  applying  it  to  things,  with  which  it  might 
seem  to  have  no  very  direct  connexion — this,  which  Surenhu 
sius  (in  his  #.',3/07  KaraVM^r^)  and  Eisenmenger  (in  his 
Entwecktes  Judentum)  have  shown  to  be  so  much  the  practice 
with  the  Rabbinical  Jews,  and  which  rationalistic  interpreters 


G8  COLLATERAL  SOURCES  FOR  EXPLAINING 

have  so  often  sought  to  connect  also  with  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  must  be  held  to  be  altogether  foreign  to  the 
territory  of  inspiration.  It  was  quite  natural  to  the  Talinud- 
ists  and  their  followers;  for  they  could  find  separate  meanings 
not  only  in  every  sentence,  but  in  every  word,  and  even  letter 
of  Scripture,  and  in  the  numerical  relations  of  these  to  each 
other.  With  them,  therefore,  Scripture  admitted  of  manifold 
senses  and  applications,  of  which  some  might  be  ever  so  re 
mote  from  the  natural  import  and  bearing.  But  apostles  and 
evangelists  belonged  to  another  school ;  and  when  they  apply 
Old  Testament  Scripture  to  a  circumstance  or  event  in  Gospel 
times,  it  must  be  in  the  fair  and  legitimate  sense  of  the  terms; 
otherwise,  their  use  of  it  could  not  be  justified  as  a  handling 
of  the  Word  of  God  in  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity. 

We  may  add,  that  on  points  of  natural  history  the  Talmuds 
seem  just  about  as  capricious  guides  as  on  texts  of  Scripture. 
The  writers  would  appear  to  have  wantoned  sometimes  with 
the  field  of  nature  around  them,  much  as  they  did  with  the 
volume  of  God's  revelation  in  their  hands;  and  to  have  found 
in  it  what  no  one  has  been  able  to  find  but  themselves.  A 
fitting  specimen  of  this  peculiarity  may  be  seen  in  the  quota 
tions  produced  by  Lightfoot  in  connexion  with  the  cursing  of 
tjie  fruitless  fig  tree.  Among  other  wonderful  things  about 
fig  trees  there  noticed,  mention  is  made  of  a  kind  which  bore 
fruit,  indeed,  every  year,  though  it  only  came  to  maturity  on 
the  third ;  so  that  three  crops,  in  different  stages  of  progress, 
might  be  seen  0*1  it  at  once;  and  on  this  notable  piece  of  na 
tural  history  an  explanation  of  the  evangelical  narrative  is 
presented.  In  such  matters  it  is  greatly  safer  to  trust  the 
accounts  of  scientific  naturalists  and  travellers  than  Jewish 
llabbis;  and  when  they  report  the  existence  of  such  figs  in 
Palestine,  it  will  be  time  enough  to  consider  what  aid  may  be 
derived  from  the  information,  to  illustrate  the  narrative  referred 
to.  Meanwhile,  no  great  loss  is  sustained;  for  the  narrative 
admits,  without  it,  of  a  perfectly  satisfactory  explanation. 

There  are  points,  however,  of  another  kind,  in  respect  to 
which  this  species  of  learning  is  not  unfrequently  applied,  not 
so  properly  for  purposes  of  elucidation,  as  with  the  view  of 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITINGS.  69 

showing  how  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel  appropriated  to  itself 
elements  and  forms  of  instruction  already  existing  in  the  Jew 
ish  schools.  Here  the  question  of  priority  is  of  some  moment ; 
and  though  the  things  themselves  remain  the  same,  their  re 
lative  character  is  materially  affected,  according  as  the  priority 
may  appear  to  have  belonged  to  the  authors  of  the  Gemara, 
or  to  the  originators  of  Christianity.  The  teaching  of  our 
Lord,  for  example,  by  parables,  is  certainly  one  of  the  most 
distinctive  features  of  His  public  ministry;  and,  accordingly, 
when  He  began  more  formally  to  employ  it,  the  Evangelist 
Matthew  saw  in  it  the  realization  of  a  prophetic  utterance 
(Matt.  xiii.  35;)  nor  can  any  one  attentively  read  the  Gospels, 
without  discerning  in  the  parables  the  most  impressive  image 
of  the  mind  of  Jesus.  But  this  impression  is  apt  to  be  con 
siderably  weakened  by  the  array  of  quotations  sometimes  pro 
duced  from  those  Rabbinical  sources,  to  show  how  the  Jewish 
teachers  delighted  in  the  use  of  parables,  and  even  exhibiting 
some  of  our  Lord's  choicest  parables  as  in  the  main  copies  of 
what  is  found  in  the  Talmud.1  The  same  thing  has  also  been 
done  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Prayer ;  so  that  not  only  its 
commencing  address,  "Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven,"  but 
nearly  all  that  follows,  is  given  as  a  series  of  extracts  from 
Jewish  forms  of  devotion.  Now,  this  style  of  exposition  pro 
ceeds  on  a  gratuitous  assumption ;  it  takes  for  granted  that 
the  existing  forms  in  the  Talmud  were  there  before  they  were 
in  the  Gospels, — and,  of  course,  that  the  Rabbinical  gave  the 
tone  to  the  Christian,  rather  than  the  Christian  to  the  Rabbi 
nical.  The  reverse  is  what  the  palpable  facts  of  the  case  tend 
to  establish.  The  prayers  of  the  synagogues  before  the  Chris 
tian  era  were  doubtless  moulded  after  the  devotional  parts  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  to  a  large  extent  composed  of  these. 
But  in  none  of  them  does  the  suppliant,  even  in  his  most  ele 
vated  moments,  rise  to  the  filial  cry  of  "My  Father  in  hea 
ven;"  it  was  the  distinctive  glory  of  the  Gospel  to  bring  in 
this  spirit  of  adoption;  and  the  theological  as  well  as  the  his 
torical  probability,  is  in  favour  of  the  supposition,  that  Rabbis 

1  Lightfoot,  Horse  Heb.  on  Matt.  vi.  xiii. ;  and  Schoettgen,  Horse  Heb.  on 
Matt.  xx.  xxL,  Luke  xv. 


70  COLLATERAL  SOURCES  FOR  EXPLAINING 

here  followed  in  the  wake  of  Jesus,  not  Jesus  in  the  wake  of 
Rabbis.  The  same  probability  holds  equally  in  regard  to  the 
parables.  The  parabolical  form,  possibly,  to  some  extent  ap 
peared  among  the  earlier  traditional  lore  of  the  Jews;  for  it 
is  not  unknown  in  Old  Testament  Scripture;  but  the  parable, 
such  as  it  is  found  in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord,  bears  on  it  the 
impress  of  originality;  and  the  few  straggling  specimens  that 
have  been  produced  from  Rabbinical  sources,  nearly  identical 
with  those  of  Christ,  may  confidently  be  pronounced  to  be 
the  echoes  of  the  latter — the  productions  of  men,  who  were 
greatly  too  feeble  and  puerile  to  invent,  but  who  had  enough 
of  sagacity  to  imitate.  The  slaves  of  the  letter  and  of  tradi 
tion  were  not  the  persons  to  originate  anything  new  or  fresh, 
not  even  in  form.1 

III.  The  more  ancient  versions  maybe  mentioned  as  the 
next  collateral  source,  from  which  aid  should  be  sought  in  en 
deavouring  to  ascertain  the  meaning,  and  expound  the  text  of 
New  Testament  Scripture.  Those  versions  have  their  primary 
use,  as  among  the  helps  for  determining  the  text  itself  that 
should  be  preferred;  since  they  exhibit  the  one  that  was  pre 
ferred  at  an  early  period  by  some,  and  possibly  should  still  be 
retained,  where  there  is  a  variation  in  the  readings.  In  this 
respect,  however,  they  can  never  amount  to  more  than  sub 
ordinate  authorities;  since  it  must  ever  remain  doubtful  whe 
ther  due  pains  were  taken  by  the  translator  to  obtain  a  pure 
text,  and  doubtful,  still  further,  whether  the  translation  may 
not  to  some  extent  have  been  tampered  with  in  the  course  of 
its  transmission  to  present  times.  There  is  necessarily  the 
same  kind  of  relative  inferiority  adhering  to  the  use  of  ver 
sions  in  connexion  with  the  import  of  the  original.  While,  in 
the  simpler  class  of  passages,  they  could  scarcely  fail  to  give 
the  natural  meaning  of  the  original,  it  must  still  be  a  matter 
more  or  less  problematical,  how  far  they  did  so  in  those  cases 
•where  there  is  some  dubiety  or  difficulty  in  the  passage,  and 

1  Owen,  in  his  Theologoumena,  Lib.  v.,  c.  15,  Dig.  4,  discusses  the  ques 
tion  of  onr  Lord's  relation  to  the  Talmudical  doctors,  but  chiefly  with  respect 
to  religious  usages  and  services.  lie  indignantly  rejects,  however,  the  idea 
of  a  borrowing  on  the  part  of  Christ. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WHITINGS.  71 

consequently  some  possibility  of  the  precise  import  having 
been  misunderstood.  Still,  considerable  weight  must  always 
be  attached,  especially  in  respect  to  the  meaning  of  particular 
words  and  phrases,  to  those  versions,  which  were  made  by  com 
petent  persons  at  a  time  when  the  original  language  of  the 
New  Testament  continued  to  exist  as  a  living  tongue.  And 
of  such  versions  so  made,  the  Vulgate  seems  entitled  to  hold 
the  first  place.  The  Vulgate,  that  is,  as  it  came  from  the 
hands  of  Jerome,  and  as  it  appears  with  probably  substantial 
correctness  in  the  Codex  Amiatinus,  the  oldest  MS.  of  the 
Vulgate  extant,  not  the  common  Vulgate  of  the  Romish  Church, 
which  in  many  parts  has  undergone  alteration  for  the  worse. 
In  point  of  learning  and  critical  tact,  Jerome,  we  have  reason 
to  believe,  was  the  most  competent  man  in  the  ancient  Church 
for  executing  a  translation  of  the  Scriptures;  and  the  version 
he  produced  would  have  been  probably  as  near  perfection  as 
the  translation  of  a  single  individual,  and  in  so  early  an  age, 
could  well  be  expected  to  be,  if  he  had  been  left  altogether 
free  to  exercise  his  judgment  in  the  performance  of  the  work. 
His  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Psalms,  was  the  unfettered  production  of  his  hand;  it  was 
made  directly  from  the  Hebrew,  as  he  himself  testifies  once 
and  again,  although,  as  it  now  exists,  it  contains  not  a  few 
accommodations  to  the  Septuagint,  and  departs  from  the  He 
brew.1  But  in  regard  to  the  New  Testament,  he  professed  to 
do  nothing  more  than  fulfil  the  request  of  Pope  Damasus, — 
revise  the  current  versions,  and  select  out  of  them  the  best; 
so  that,  as  he  said,  "he  restrained  his  pen,  merely  correcting 
those  things  which  appeared  to  aifect  the  sense,  and  permit 
ting  other  things  to  remain  as  they  had  been."  What  was 
called  the  Old  Italic,  or  Latin  version,  therefore,  was  simply 
the  current  version,  in  one  or  other  of  the  forms  in  which  it. 
existed  before  it  had  been  the  subject  of  Jerome's  collating 
and  emendatory  labours.  It  now  exists  only  ia  par.t,  but  mos* 
fully  in  the  Codex  Claromontanus,  which  is  of  great  antiquity. 
In  some  things  the  rendering  contained  in  it  is  even  prefer 
able  to  that  adopted  by  Jerome,  and,  consequently,  where  ac- 

1  See  Walton's  Prolegomena,  x.  c.  9. 


72  COLLATERAL  SOURCES  FOR  EXPLAINING 

cess  can  be  had  to  it,  it  is  worthy  of  being  consulted.  But  it 
is  not  so  properly  a  distinct  version  from  that  of  Jerome,  as  a 
variation  of  what  became  his.  And,  as  a  whole,  Jerome's 
form  of  the  Latin  version  must  be  held  to  be  the  best.  Re 
strained  and  limited  as  his  object  was,  he  undoubtedly  accom 
plished  much  good.  And  with  all  the  defect  of  polish  that 
appears  in  the  version  that  goes  by  his  name,  its  occasional 
Hebraisms,  the  imperfect  renderings,  and  even  erroneous  re 
presentations  of  the  original,  sometimes  to  be  met  with  in  it, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  in  general  a  faithful  transla 
tion,  and  has  rendered  essential  service  toward  the  elucidation 
of  the  sacred  text. 

Some  of  the  blemishes  in  the  Vulgate,  especially  in  the  New 
Testament  portion,  are  obvious,  and  have  often  been  exposed ; 
such  as  the  poenitentiam  agite,  in  Matt.  iii.  2,  and  other  pa 
rallel  places;  Ave  gratia  plena,  Luke  i.  28;  mortuus  est  au- 
tem  et  dives,  et  sepultus  est  in  inferno,  Luke  xvi.  22 ;  et  (Ja 
cob)  adoravit  fastigium  virgse  ejus,  Heb.  xi.  21 ;  panem  nos 
trum  supersubstantialem  da  nobis,  Matt.  vi.  11,  etc.  And, 
unfortunately,  they  are  mistranslations  which  too  often  afford 
a  sort  of  handle  to  the  advocates  of  corruption  in  the  Church 
of  Rome.  Yet  it  is  proper  also  to  add,  that  some  of  the  ex 
amples  occasionally  referred  to  in  that  connexion  yield  no  real 
countenance  to  those  corruptions;  ami  some  again,  that  are 
more  correct  than  the  English  translation,  which  has  been  ex 
alted  to  the  prejudice  of  the  other.  Thus  at  1  Pet.  iii.  19, 
the  rendering,  in  quo  et  his,  qui  in  carcere  erant,  spiritibus 
veniens  praedicavit,  is  substantially  correct  (though  the  mean 
ing  expressed,  of  course,  may  be,  and  often  is,  perverted  by 
Romanists  to  a  wrong  use,)  and  the  in  quo,  in  which,  is  more 
exact  than  the  by  which  of  the  authorized  version.  In  not 
a  few  cases,  indeed,  the  Vulgate  is  decidedly  more  correct 
than  our  version  in  the  rendering  of  prepositions  and  connect 
ing  particles: — as,  to  refer  to  one  or  two  examples  partly 
mentioned  already  in  another  connexion,  ut  in  nomine  Jesu 
omne  genu  flectatur,  Philippians  ii.  10;  gratia  vobis  ct  pax 
adimpleatur  in  cognitione  Dei,  2  Pet.  i.  2;  qui  vocavit  nos 
propria  gloria  et  virtute,  ver.  3;  ut  impleamini  in  ornnem  pie- 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITINGS.  73 

nitudinem  Dei,  Eph.  iii.  19.  In  these,  and  many  other  cases, 
the  Vulgate  contrasts  favourably  with  our  English  version  in 
respect  to  grammatical  precision;  and,  if  judiciously  used,  it 
may  often  be  of  service  in  suggesting  some  of  the  nicer  shades 
of  meaning.  It  is  due  also  to  the  memory  of  Jerome  to  no 
tice  (though  it  does  not  belong  to  the  criticism  of  the  New 
Testament,)  that  the  well-known  mistranslation  in  the  autho 
rized  Vulgate  of  Rome,  of  Gen.  iii.  15,  ipsa  conteret  caput 
tuum,  which  ascribes  to  the  woman  the  victory  over  the  tempter, 
and  which  the  Romanists  usually  apply  direct  to  the  Virgin, 
is  a  later  corruption.  The  correct  reading  as  given  by  Val- 
larsius,  runs,  ipse  conteret  caput  tuum,  and,  in  a  note,  he  de 
clares  this  to  be  beyond  doubt  the  reading  established  by  the 
authority  of  MSS. 

The  version  next  in  importance  to  the  Vulgate  of  Jerome, 
and  undoubtedly  prior  to  it  in  origin,  is  the  Old  Syriac,  or 
Peschito — a  production,  in  all  likelihood,  of  the  latter  part  of 
the  second  century.  We  know  nothing  of  the  author  of  this 
version  (which,  however,  wants  the  second  Epistle  of  Peter, 
the  last  two  of  John,  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse;)  but  without 
going  into  the  extravagance  of  Michaelis,  who  pronounced  it 
"the  very  best  translation  of  the  Greek  Testament  he  had  ever 
read,"  we  may  safely  regard  it  as,  in  general,  a  faithful  and 
spirited  translation.  The.  chief  use,  to  which  it  has  hitherto 
been  turned,  is  as  a  witness  in  behalf  of  the  genuine  text.  This 
may  have  partly  arisen  from  the  Syrian  language  being  so 
little  understood,  even  by  Biblical  scholars.  They  may,  how 
ever,  to  some  extent,  avail  themselves  of  its  aid  by  means  of 
the  translations  which  have  been  made  of  it.  It  has  long 
existed  in  Latin;  and  a  few  years  ago  the  portion  containing 
the  Gospels  was  rendered  into  English  by  Mr.  Etheridge,  ac 
companied  with  preliminary  dissertations. 

The  remaining  versions  which,  from  their  age  or  their  fide 
lity  to  the  original,  are  entitled  to  consideration,  and  calcu 
lated  to  be  of  occasional  service  in  the  work  of  exposition,  are 
the  Ethiopic,  the  Memphitic,  and  the  Gothic  of  Ulphilas.  The 
aid,  however,  to  be  derived  from  any  of  them  is  extremely  li 
mited.  Mr.  Ellicott,  in  the  preface  to  his  last  volume  (his 
7 


74  COLLATERAL  SOURCES  FOR  EXPLAINING 

Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Philippians,  Colossians, 
and  Philemon)  speaks  in  strong  terms  of  the  excellence  of  the 
Ethiopic  version,  and  of  the  satisfaction  he  has  derived  from 
consulting  it,  since  he  has  been  enabled  to  find  his  way  with 
some  certainty  to  its  meaning.  But,  in  truth,  we  have  so 
many  more  helps  for  getting  at  the  precise  import  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament,  than  for  arriving  at  an  intelligent  ac 
quaintance  with  the  old  Ethiopic  version  of  that  Greek,  that 
most  people  will  feel  gYeatly  more  assured  of  coming  at  the 
object  of  their  search  by  repairing  directly  to  the  original 
source;  nor,  with  the  defective  literature  of  Ethiopia  in  the 
early  centuries,  can  such  a  version — even  if  it  were  thoroughly 
understood — attain  to  a  place  of  much  authority.  Its  ren 
derings  can,  at  the  most,  confirm  meanings  obtained  by  other 
and  surer  lines  of  investigation.  And  the  same  may  be  said 
of  the  Memphitic  and  Gothic  versions.  So  that,  whatever  in 
cidental  benefits  or  personal  satisfaction  the  study  of  such  ver 
sions  may  yield,  little  comparatively  can  now  be  expected 
from  them  as  to  the  correct  understanding  of  New  Testament 
Scripture. 

IV.  Among  the  collateral  sources  of  information,  that  may 
be  turned  to  account  in  the  interpretation  of  New  Testament 
Scripture,  we  must  unquestionably  reckon  the  writings  of  the 
earlier  Fathers.  It  is,  certainly,  but  a  mixed  service  they 
render;  since,  from  the  strong  tendency  among  them  to  al 
legorical  and  arbitrary  modes  of  interpretation,  if  they  are  not 
used  discriminatingly,  they  will  often  prove  false  guides.  They 
were  as  a  class  defective  in  critical  discernment,  and  that  well- 
poised  balance  of  mind,  which  in  such  matters  is  rarely  pos 
sessed,  excepting  as  the  result  of  an  efficient  training  in  lin 
guistic  and  critical  studies,  such  as  they  did  not  enjoy.  Had 
the  earlier  Fathers  but  possessed  a  little  more  of  the  critical 
faculty,  and  employed  in  connexion  with  it  the  advantages  of 
their  position  for  the  good  of  the  Church  in  future  times,  they 
would  have  directed  their  minds  particularly  to  the  investiga 
tion  of  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  Gospel  age,  ex 
amined  with  minute  care  thejnformation  that  lay  within  their 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WRITINGS.  75 

reach  respecting  the  local  and  historical  allusions  in  the  New 
Testament,  searched  into  the  meaning  of  all  words  that  in  any 
way  bore  upon  them  the  peculiar  impress  of  the  time,  and  by 
philological  or  antiquarian  researches  endeavoured  to  make 
plain  the  obscurer  passages  in  the  Gospels  and  Epistles.  These, 
however,  are  the  provinces  which  they  have  most  thoroughly 
neglected  to  cultivate,  and  in  respect  to  which,  apparently, 
they  felt  least  conscious  of  any  need  of  special  application. 
We  have  scarcely  left  the  inspired  territory,  till  we  find  our 
selves  involved  in  the  strangest  misconceptions  even  as  to 
matters  of  fact,  and,  instead  of  careful  discriminations  be 
tween  fable  and  history,  are  presented  with  a  confused  jum 
bling  of  both  together.  In  what  is  probably  the  earliest  of 
sub-apostolic  writings  extant,  one  also  of  the  best — the  epistle 
of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians — we  have  the  fables  about  the 
Danaids  and  the  Phoenix  classed  with  the  biographical  notices 
of  sacred  history,  and  treated  as  equally  deserving  of  credit 
(c.  6,  24.)  Justin,  in  like  manner,  swallows  without  a  suspi 
cion  the-story  of  Aristeas  about  the  translation  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  and  even  speaks  of  Herod  as  having  sent  to  Ptolemy  the 
seventy  elders  who  executed  the  work;  as  if  the  two  had  been 
contemporaries!  (Apol.  c.  31,  Exhor.  ad  Grsecos,  §  11.)  Even 
in  the  face  of  plain  statements  in  the  Gospel  history  to  the 
contrary,  he  once  and  again,  in  his  Trypho,  represents  Jesus 
as  having  been  born  in  a  cave  or  grotto.  Irenseus  falls  into 
mistakes  and  inanities  still  more  extraordinary;  not  only  ac 
crediting  the  senseless  tradition  of  Papias  respecting  the  fruit- 
fulness  of  the  millenial  age  (B.  V.  c.  33,)  but  also  affirming  it 
to  have  been  the  teaching  of  St.  John,  that  our  Lord's  person 
al  ministry  lasted  from  His  thirtieth  till  His  fiftieth  year  (ii. 
c.  4,  5.)  Even  when  we  come  down  to  the  more  regular  and 
elaborate  expositors  of  New  Testament  Scripture,  Augustine, 
Jerome,  Chrysostom,  while  they  contain  much  that  deserves, 
and  will  repay  a  careful  perusal,  they  are  marvellously  defi 
cient  on  those  points  in  which  their  comparative  proximity  to 
apostolic  times,  had  they  known  how  to  avail  themselves  of 
its  opportunities,  should  have  given  them  an  acknowledged 
superiority  over  more  distant  generations.  In  respect  to  dates 


70  COLLATERAL  SOURCES  FOR  EXPLAINING 

and  places,  customs  and  manners,  they  knew  nothing  of  the 
accuracy  of  our  age.  Their  references  to  Old  Testament  af 
fairs  contain  often  the  most  egregious  blunders  (of  which  a 
striking  example  will  be  found  in  the  Dissertation  on  the  Ge 
nealogies  ;)  and  of  the  spirit  and  design  of  the  Old  Testament 
economy,  both  as  a  whole,  and  in  its  several  parts,  they  are 
ever  evincing  the  most  defective  understanding.  Not  unfre- 
quently,  also,  in  matters  connected  with  the  New,  we  meet 
with  explanations  utterly  puerile  and  fantastic;  as  in  the  in 
stance  produced  by  Archdeacon  Hare  from  Augustine  re 
specting  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  to  the  disciples  on  two  distinct 
occasions — an  explanation  that  turns  on  the  mystical  value  of 
numbers — and  of  which  Hare  justly  remarks : — "  The  striking 
thing  is,  not  that  the  explanation  is  a  bad  one,  but  that  it 
implies  an  ignorance  of  what  an  explanation  is,  and  of  the 
method  in  which  we  are  to  attain  it;  and  the  same  thing  we 
find  perpetually,  as  well  in  the  Fathers,  as  in  the  contempo 
rary  grammarians  and  rhetoricians."1 

Another  thing,  that  may  equally  be  characterized  as  striking 
in  the  mode  of  exposition  adopted  by  the  Fathers,  is  the  per 
petual  interchange  beween  the  most  spiritualistic  meanings 
and  the  grossest  literalism;  so  that  one  is  puzzled  to  under 
stand  how  the  same  minds  that  took  pleasure  in  the  one  could 
possibly  rest  satisfied  with  the  other.  For  example,  we  have 
not  one  merely,  but  a  whole  series  of  the  Fathers  (Barnabas, 
Tertullian,  Clement  Alex.,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  etc.,)  finding 
in  the  letter  T,  when  occurring  as  a  numeral  in  the  Old  Tes 
tament,  an  indication  of  the  cross,  numbers  of  all  kinds  spiri 
tualized,  the  spring  in  Eden  with  its  four  streams  made  to 
signify  Christ  and  the  four  cardinal  virtues  (Ambrose  de  Pa- 
rad.  3;)  and,  in  short,  the  principle  of  Augustine  carried  out 
in  all  directions,  "that  whatever  in  Scripture  cannot  be  re 
ferred  to  purity  of  manners  or  the  realities  of  faith,  is  to  be 
understood  spiritually"  (De  Doc.  Chris,  iii.  14.)  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  ever  and  anon  meets  us  the  most  literal  and 
fleshly  application  of  the  prophecies:  if  these  speak  of  New 
Testament  things  under  the  images  supplied  by  the  Old,  of 

1  Mission  of  the  Comforter,  p.  312. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  \YRITINGS.  77 

priesthood  and  sacrifice,  they  are  interpreted  to  mean  things 
equally  outward  and  earthly  still.  Some  of  the  Fathers  (such 
as  Irengeus,  Tertullian,  Ambrose,  Lactantius,)  even  carried 
this  species  of  carnalism  into  the  future  world,  and  held  that 
flesh  and  blood  only  in  the  sense  of  unregenerate  nature,  shall 
not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God;  but  that  the  bodies  of  be 
lievers — limb  for  limb,  member  for  member,  precisely  the 
same  bodies  as  now — shall  be  raised  up  from  the  dead,  and 
shall  regale  themselves  with  corporeal  delights  (Tert.  de  Resur. 
c.  35,  Irenseus,  v.  9,  etc.)  This  exegetical  caprice,  which  os 
cillated  between  two  extremes,  and  inclined  to  the  one  or  the 
other  as  the  fancy  or  exigence  of  the  moment  might  prompt, 
unfits  the  patristic  writings  for  being  employed  as  exegetical 
guides;  and,  along  with  the  other  defects  mentioned,  obliges 
the  student  at  every  step  to  exercise  his  discretion. 

Still,  considerable  benefit  is  to  be  reaped  for  Scriptural 
interpretation  from  the  perusal  of  the  more  eminent  Fathers 
— although  one  that  we  must  be  content  to  seek  in  fragments. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  bearing  they  have  on  the  text  of  Scrip 
ture,  the  development  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  the  varied 
evolution  of  evil  and  good  in  the  history  of  the  Church, 
which  constitute  their  chief  historical  interest,  they  are 
valuable  for  the  manifestation  they  give  of  mind  in  the  ancient 
world,  when  brought  into  contact  with  the  revelation  of  God 
in  Christ,  and  of  the  effect  produced  by  this  in  turning  the 
tide  of  thought  and  feeling,  and  directing  it  into  a  channel 
somewhat  accordant  with  the  realities  of  the  gospel.  Even 
when  the  explanations  given  of  Scripture  are  one-sided  and 
imperfect,  they  are  far  from  being  uninstructive;  for,  when 
not  absolutely  erroneous,  they  still  present  one  aspect  of  the 
truth,  which  the  events  and  relations  of  the  ancient  world 
served  more  particularly  to  call  forth.  In  this  respect  they 
contribute  an  element — often  a  very  important  element — to 
the  full  understanding  of  the  Divine  record.  And  in  writers 
of  the  higher  class — writers  like  Augustine  and  Chrysostom 
— one  is  continually  rewarded  with  passages,  which  discover 
the  profoundest  insight  into  the  truth  of  Scripture,  and  pre 
sent  it  to  our  view  in  the  sharpest  outline.  The  Greek  expo- 

7* 


78  COLLATERAL  SOURCES. 

sitors,  too,  among  the  fathers,  have  a  value  of  their  own  in 
regard  to  occasional  words  and  phrases,  the  precise  import  of 
which  they  not  unfrequently  enable  us  to  apprehend,  or  at 
least  to  determine,  in  a  way  that  might  otherwise  have  been 
impracticable.  With  all  the  exceptions,  therefore,  and  seri 
ous  abatements  that  require  to  be  made,  in  regard  to  the  exe- 
getical  value  of  the  fathers,  there  are  advantages  to  be  de 
rived  from  their  judicious  perusal,  which  no  well-furnished  in 
terpreter  can  dispense  with;  and  however,  in  certain  quarters, 
their  employment  may  have  been  pushed  to  excess,  the  full 
and  correct  knowledge  of  New  Testament  Scripture  has  cer 
tainly  gained  by  the  revived  study  of  their  writings. 

V.  In  the  way  of  collateral  sources,  nothing  further  requires 
to  be  mentioned,  excepting  the  occasional  employment  of  the 
various  materials,  furnished  partly  by  ancient,  partly  by 
modern  research,  which  serve  to  throw  light  on  the  historical, 
social,  or  geographical  allusions  of  the  New  Testament.  If 
the  earlier  Christian  writers  have  done  little  to  supply  us  with 
such  materials,  the  deficiency  is  in  a  great  degree  made  up  by 
contributions  from  other  quarters.  From  the  nearly  station 
ary  character  of  society  in  the  lands  of  the  East,  the  manners 
and  usages  of  the  present  time,  which  have  been  amply  illus 
trated  by  modern  travellers,  have  brought  us  almost  equally 
acquainted  with  those  of  the  Gospel  age.  All  the  scenes,  too, 
of  Gospel  history,  not  only  the  places  trodden  by  the  footsteps 
of  Jesus,  but  those  hallowed  by  the  labours,  the  journeyings, 
and  voyages  of  the  apostles,  have  been  with  laborious  accu 
racy  explored.  The  chronology  of  the  New  Testament  has 
been  so  frequently  and  so  fully  investigated,  that  the  probable 
period  of  every  event  of  any  moment  has  been  ascertained. 
And  even  the  local  details,  and  casual  occurrences  of  single 
chapters — such  as  the  27th  of  the  Acts — have  been  verified 
and  explained  with  a  minuteness  and  fidelity,  which  leaves 
nothing  further  to  be  desired,  (Smith  on  the  Voyage  and  Ship 
wreck  of  St.  Paul.)  With  sources  of  such  a  kind  the  intelli 
gent  interpreter  of  Scripture  must  make  himself  familiar;  and 
be  prepared  at  fitting  times  to  use  the  information,  which  past 


GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION.  79 

care  and  industry  have  accumulated.  In  its  own  place  this  is 
valuable,  and,  in  a  sense,  indispensable;  yet  still  only  as  a 
subsidiary  aid;  and  the  work  of  exposition  turns  into  a  wrong 
channel,  when  it  finds  its  chief  employment  in  matters  of  so 
incidental  and  circumstantial  a  kind. 


SECTION  FOURTH. 

GENERAL  RULES  AND  PRINCIPLES  TO  BE  FOLLOWED  IN  THE   INTER 
PRETATION  OF  PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES. 

WE  must  now  make  the  supposition,  that  the  points  adverted 
to  in  the  preceding  sections  have  been  duly  attended  to;  that 
an  acquaintance  has  been  formed  with  the  peculiar  dialect  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  with  the  collateral  sources  of  infor 
mation  fitted  to  throw  light  on  its  terms  and  allusions.  It  by 
no  means  follows,  however,  that  when  we  have  become  thus 
furnished  with  knowledge  in  such  elementary  matters,  we  have 
all  the  qualifications  necessary  to  render  us  safe  or  skilful  in 
terpreters  of  New  Testament  Scripture,  capable  of  unfolding 
with  clearness  and  accuracy  the  meaning  of  its  several  parts. 
For  this  various  other  things  are  requisite,  the  want  or  neg 
lect  of  which  may  as  certainly  ensure  our  failure  in  the  work 
of  interpretation,  at  least  as  regards  the  more  select  portions 
of  Scripture,  as  if  we  had  yet  to  learn  the  peculiar  structure 
and  characteristics  of  the  language.  We  proceed,  therefore, 
to  lay  down  some  general  rules  and  principles,  which  it  is  of 
essential  moment  that  we  be  in  a  condition  to  embrace  and  act 
upon,  in  order  to  exhibit  aright  the  meaning  of  Scripture. 

1.  The  first  we  shall  notice  is  one,  that  bears  on  the  state 
of  mind  of  the  interpreter — lie  must  endeavour  to  attain  to  a 
sympathy  in  thought  and  feeling  with  the  sacred  writers,  whose 
meaning  he  seeks  to  unfold.  Such  a  sympathy  is  not  required 
for  the  interpretation  alone  of  the  inspired  writings;  it  is 
equally  necessary  in  respect  to  any  ancient  author;  and  the 
possession  of  it,  to  some  extent,  must  be  held  to  be  altogether 


80  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

indispensable.  Language  is  but  the  utterance  of  thought  and 
feeling  on  the  part  of  one  person  to  another,  and  the  more  we 
can  identify  ourselves  with  the  state  of  mind  out  of  which 
that  thought  and  feeling  arose,  the  more  manifestly  shall  we 
be  qualified  for  appreciating  the  language  in  which  they  are 
embodied,  and  reproducing  true  and  living  impressions  of  it. 
An  utter  discordance  or  marked'  deficiency  in  the  one  respect, 
cannot  fail  to  discover  itself  in  the  other  by  corresponding 
blunders  and  defects. 

It  is  the  virtual  abnegation  of  this  principle,  and  the  pal 
pable  want  of  the  qualification  which  it  presupposes,  that  has 
rendered  the  really  available  results  so  inadequate,  which  have 
been  accomplished  by  the  rationalistic  school  of  interpreters. 
Not  a  few  of  them  have  given  proof  of  superior  talents,  and 
have  brought  to  the  task  also  the  acquirements  of  a  profound 
and  varied  scholarship.  The  lexicography  and  grammar,  the 
philology  and  archaeology  of  Scripture,  have  been  largely  in 
debted  to  their  inquiries  and  researches;  but,  from  the  grie 
vous  mental  discrepancy  existing  between  the  commentator  and 
his  author,  and  the  different  points  of  view  from  which  they 
respectively  looked  at  Divine  things,  writers  of  this  class  ne 
cessarily  failed  to  penetrate  the  depths  of  the  subjects  they 
had  to  handle,  fell  often  into  jejune  and  superficial  represen 
tations  on  particular  parts,  and  on  entire  books  of  Scripture 
never  once  succeeded  in  producing  a  really  satisfactory  expo 
sition.  What  proper  insight,  for  example,  into  the  utterances 
of  the  apostle  John — utterances  that  are  remarkable  for  the 
combination  they  present  of  simplicity  in  form,  with  depth 
and  comprehensiveness  of  meaning — could  be  expected  from 
one,  who  calls,  indeed,  upon  the  reader  to  sympathize  with  the 
sacred  writer,  but  how  to  do  so?  To  sympathize  "  with  the 
apostle,  as  being,  at  the  time  of  his  writing  the  epistle,  a  weak 
old  man,  who  had  no  longer  the  power  of  thinking  in  any 
connected  manner."  Such  is  the  manner  in  which  even  Lange 
speaks,  though  in  many  respects  greatly  in  advance  ,of  the 
proper  rationalists.  Dr.  Paulus  of  Heidelberg  was  long  one 
of  the  leading  champions  of  this  school — a  man  of  no  or 
dinary  gifts,  both  natural  and  acquired,  and  a  man,  too,  who 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  81 

possessed  what  many  learned  and  useful  commentators  have 
wanted — the  power  of  so  far  sympathizing  with  the  sacred 
penmen,  as  to  realize,  in  a  vivid  and  attractive  manner,  the 
scenes  of  their  history,  and  the  circumstances  in  which  they 
were  placed.  But  all  being  brought  to  the  test  of  a  so-called 
rational — namely,  an  anti-supernatural — standard,  the  spirit 
evaporates  in  his  hands,  and  every  thing  in  a  sense  becomes 
common  and  unclean.  The  most  miraculous  occurrences 
shrink  into  merely  clever  transactions  or  happy  coincidences; 
and  even  when  he  comes  to  such  a  passage  as  this,  "  Blessed 
art  thou,  for  flesh  and  blood  have  not  revealed  it  to  thee,  but 
My  Father  that  is  in  heaven,"  he  can  see  nothing  but  a  refe 
rence  to  the  force  of  circumstances  in  awakening  the  mind  to 
reflection,  and  giving  it  a  practical  direction  and  impulse  to 
ward  what  is  good;  or  to  such  another  passage  as  this,  "I 
must  work  the  works  of  Him  that  sent  Me  while  it  is  day: 
the  night  cometh,  when  no  man  can  work,"  the  whole  he  can 
extract  from  it  is,  "  I  must  heal  the  diseased  eyes  before  the 
evening  twilight  comes  on,  because  when  it  is  dark  we  can  no 
longer  see  to  work."1 

This  school  of  interpretation,  however,  at  least  in  the  ex 
treme  shape  represented  by  Dr.  Paulus,  has  become  virtually 
extinct.  In  Germany  itself  the  tide  has  long  since  turned, 
and  been  steadily  setting  in  a  better  direction;  nor  would  it 
be  easy  to  find  any  where  better  specimens  of  a  truly  sympa 
thetic  and  congenial  spirit  in  the  work  of  interpretation,  than 
are  furnished  by  some  of  the  later  expository  productions  from 
that  country.  There  still  is,  no  doubt,  and  probably  will 
ever  be,  both  there  and  here,  a  class  of  interpreters,  who  in 
a  eertain  modified  form  exhibit  a  defect  in  the  respect  under 
consideration;  but  a  conviction,  as  to  the  real  nature  of  the 

1  The  entire  note  on  the  first  of  the  two  passages  is:  "All  circumstances 
leading  to  insight  and  pursuit  after  the  good  are,  in  the  New  Testament,  con 
sidered  as  grounded  in  the  Godhead,  educating  men  in  a  spontaneous  and 
moral,  not  juridical  manner.  When  they  awaken  the  mind  to  reflection,  fur 
nish  to  its  activity  matters  of  practical  insight,  keep  these  before  it,  and 
thereby  quicken  the  energetic  working  toward  what  is  good,  then  the  pater 
nally  inclined  Godhead  reveals  to  man  something  which  the  grovelling  and 
earthly  disposition  in  man  could  not  have  discovered  to  him." 


GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OP 

tilings  which  constituted  the  great  aim  and  substance  of  the 
gospel,  and  to  the  necessity  of  a  correspondence  in  belief  and 
spirit  between  the  inspired  penmen  and  those  who  would  en 
gage  in  the  work  of  interpretation,  such  a  conviction  being 
now  more  generally  diffused  and  constantly  growing,  renders 
it  probable,  that  that  specific  work  will  in  the  future  be  left 
more  in  the  hands  of  persons,  whose  productions  shall  mani 
fest  a  becoming  unison  of  sentiment  between  the  original  au 
thor  and  the  modern  disciple.  Hence  it  is  laid  down  as  a 
fundamental  point  by  a  distinguished  German  theologian — by 
Hagenbach  in  his  Encyclopedia,  that  "an  inward  interest  in 
the  doctrine  of  theology  is  needful  for  a  Biblical  interpreter. 
As  we  say,  that  a  philosophical  spirit  is  demanded  for  the 
study  of  Plato,  a  poetical  taste  for  the  reading  of  Horner  or 
Pindar,  a  sensibility  to  wit  and  satire  for  the  perusal  of  Lu- 
cian,  a  patriotic  sentiment  for  the  enjoyment  of  Sallust  and 
Tacitus,  equally  certain  is  it,  that  the  fitness  to  understand 
the  profound  truths  of  Scripture,  of  the  New  Testament  espe 
cially,  presupposes,  as  an  indispensable  requisite,.a  sentiment 
of  piety,  an  inward  religious  experience.  Thus  is  it  ever  true, 
that  the  Scriptures  will  not  be  rightly  and  spiritually  compre 
hended,  unless  the  Spirit  of  God  become  himself  the  true  in 
terpreter  of  His  words,  the  angelus  interpres,  who  will  open 
to  us  the  real  meaning  of  the  Bible." 

The  more  we  take  into  consideration  the  distinctive  charac 
ter  of  Scripture,  as  a  revelation  from  God,  the  more  shall  we 
be  convinced  of  the  necessity  and  the  importance  of  the  prin 
ciple  now  stated.  That  character  constitutes  a  special  reason 
for  a  harmony  of  spirit  between  the  interpreter  and  the  ori 
ginal  writer,  beyond  what  belongs  to  Scripture  in  common 
with  other  ancient  writings.  For,  as  an  authoritative  revela 
tion  of  the  mind  of  God,  it  unfolds  things  above  the  reach  of 
our  natural  desire  and  apprehension,  and  unfolds  them,  not 
as  things  that  may  be  coolly  surveyed  and  thoroughly  under 
stood  from  a  position  of  indifference,  but  as  things  affecting 
our  highest  interests,  and  demanding  our  implicit  and  cordial 
acceptance.  In  such  a  case  something  more  is  evidently  re 
quired  than  mere  intellectual  discernment,  or  competent  scho- 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.          83 

larship.  The  heart  as  well  as  the  head  must  be  right;  there 
must  be  the  delicacy  of  a  spiritual  taste,  and  the  humility  of 
a  childlike  disposition.  So  true  is  the  sentiment,  which  Nean- 
der  took  for  his  motto,  Pectus  est  quod  theologum  facit.  Our 
Lord,  indeed,  declared  as  much  at  the  outset,  when  He  said, 
in  His  address  to  the  Father,  "Thou  hast  hid  these  things 
from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto 
babes."  It  is  only  with  the  attainment  of  such  a  spiritual 
condition,  that  the  eye  opens  to  a  clear  perception  of  the 
truth,  or  that  the  mind  is  able  to  discern  the  full  import  of  the 
words  which  embody  it,  and  catch  the  nicer  shades  of  mean 
ing  they  convey.  So  that  what  has  been  said  of  religion  ge 
nerally,  may  be  specially  applied  to  the  interpretation  of  its 
sacred  records:  "As  in  all  subjects  we  can  understand  lan 
guage  only  as  far  as  we  have  some  experience  of  the  things  it 
reports,  so  in  religion  (by  the  very  same  principle)  the  spiri 
tual  heart  alone  can  understand  the  language  of  the  Spirit. 
In  every  book  whatever,  it  is  the  mind  of  the  reader  that  puts 
meaning  in  the  words;  but  the  language  of  the  New  Covenant 
is  a  celestial  language,  and  they  who  would  give  their  fulness 
to  its  blessed  words,  must  have  caught  their  secret  from  hea 
ven."1 

2.  Necessary,  however,  and  important  as  this  sympathetic 
spirit,  this  spiritus  interpres,  is,  on  the  part  of  the  interpreter 
of  Scripture,  when  possessed  in  fullest  measure,  it  can  never 
entitle  any  one  to  use  arbitrariness  in  the  explanation  of  its 
words,  or  warrant  him  to  put  a  sense  on  these  different  from 
that  which  properly  belongs  to  them.  Its  value  lies  simply  in 
guiding  to  the  real  import,  not  in  modifying  it,  or  in  superin 
ducing  something  of  its  own  upon  it.  And  we,  therefore,  lay 
it  down  as  another  principle  to  be  sacredly  maintained  in 
Scriptural  interpretations,  that  nothing  should  be  elicited  from 
the  text  but  what  is  yielded  by  the  fair  and  grammatical  ex 
planation  of  the  language.  The  import  of  each  word,  and 
phrase,  and  passage,  must  be  investigated  in  a  manner  per 
fectly  accordant  with  the  laws  of  language,  and  with  the  ac 
tual  circumstances  of  the  writers.  Not  what  we  may  think 
1  Sermons  by  Mr.  A.  Butler,  First  Series,  p.  94. 


84:  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

they  should  have  said,  or  might  possibly  wish  they  had  said, 
but  simply  what,  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  ascertain,  they  did 
say — this  must  be  the  sole  object  of  our  pursuit;  and  the  more 
there  is  of  perfect  honesty  and  discriminating  tact  in  our  ef 
forts  to  arrive  at  this,  the  more  certain  is  our  success.  For 
in  the  words  of  Bengel:1  "It  is  better  to  run  all  lengths  with 
Scripture  truth  in  a  natural  and  open  manner,  than  to  shift, 
and  twist,  and  accommodate.  Straightforward  conduct  may 
draw  against  us  bitterness  and  rancour  for  a  time,  but  sweet 
ness  will  come  out  of  it.  Every  single  truth  is  a  light  of  it 
self,  and  every  error,  however  minute,  is  darkness  as  far  as  it 
goes." 

Nothing  is  more  directly  at  variance  with  this  principle  of 
interpretation,  and  more  surely  fatal  to  success,  than  a  party 
or 'polemical  bias,  which  brings  the  mind  to  the  examination 
of  Scripture  with  a  particular  bent,  and  disposes  it  to  work 
for  an  inferior  end.  No  doubt,  it  may  be  alleged,  the  posses 
sion  of  a  spirit  in  harmony  wijth  that  of  the  sacred  penmen 
implies  something  of  this  description — as  such  a  spirit  cannot 
exist  without  the  recognition  of  vital  truths  and  principles 
common  to  us  with  the  inspired  writers,  and  in  conformity 
with  which  our  interpretation  must  proceed.  To  some  extent 
it  must  be  so.  But  there  is  a  great,  and,  for  the  most  part, 
easily  marked  distinction,  between  holding  thus  with  the  writers 
of  New  Testament  Scripture  in  a  natural  and  appropriate  man 
ner,  and  doing  it  in  a  controversial  and  party  spirit — between 
holding  with  them  so  as  to  give  a  fair  and  consistent  interpre 
tation  of  their  language,  and  doing  it,  or  professing  to  do  it, 
wThile  we  are  ever  and  anon  putting  a  constrained  or  inade 
quate  meaning  on  their  words.  If  the  latter  be  our  mode  of 
procedure,  it  will  not  fail  to  betray  itself  in  the  manifest  vio 
lence  occasionally  done  to  the  words  of  the  original,  and  the 
various  shifts  resorted  to  for  the  purpose,  either  of  evading  their 
proper  force,  or  foisting  upon  them  a  sense  they  cannot  fairly 
be  made  to  bear. 

Previous  to  the  Reformation,  divines  of  the  Romish  Church 
were  wont  to  carry  this  style  of  interpretation  to  the  worst 

1  Life  by  Burck,  p.  259. 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  85 

extreme.  Individual  writers,  here  and  there,  gave  evidence 
of  a  certain  degree  of  candour  and  impartiality ;  but,  for  the 
most  part,  the  sacred  text  was  treated  in  abject  deference  to 
the  authority  of  Rome,  and  the  most  arbitrary  expositions 
were  fallen  upon  to  establish  her  doctrinal  positions.  It  was 
only  such  a  vigorous  and  general  movement  as  the  Reforma 
tion, — a  movement  basing  itself  upon  the  true  sense  of  Scrip 
ture,  and  perpetually  appealing  to  that  for  its  justification, — 
which  would  break  the  trammels  that  had  so  long  lain  upon 
men's  minds  in  this  respect,  and  recall  sincere  students  of 
Scripture  to  the  simple,  grammatical  sense  of  its  words.  To 
a  great  extent,  it  actually  did  this.  Luther,  Melancthon, 
Calvin,  and  the  other  leading  Reformers,  were  of  one  mind 
here,  though  they  sometimes  failed,  and  differed  from  each 
other,  in  the  results  to  which  the  principle  actually  led  them. 
Their  fundamental  rule  was,  that  "the  sense  of  Scripture  is 
one,  certain,  and  simple,  and  is  everywhere  to  be  ascertained 
in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  grammar  and  human  dis 
course."  (Elem.  Rhet.  II.  of  Melancthon.)  "We  must  not," 
says  Luther,  "make  God's  word  mean  what  we  wish;  we 
must  not  bend  it,  but  allow  it  to  bend  us;  and  give  it  the 
honour  of  being  better  than  we  could  make  it;  so  that  we 
must  let  it  stand."  Of  this  fair,  straightforward,  grammati 
cal  mode  of  handling  Scripture,  as  characteristic  of  the  spirit 
of  the  Reformation,  the  Commentaries  of  Calvin  are  the  no 
blest  monument  of  the  period,  scarcely  surpassed  in  that  re 
spect,  as  in  certain  others  not  equalled,  to  the  present  day.  It 
was  more,  indeed,  by  what  the  Reformers  did  in  their  exegeti- 
cal  productions,  and  their  comments  on  Scripture,  than  by 
any  formal  announcement  or  explanation  of  their  hermeneuti- 
cal  principles,  that  both  they  themselves  and  their  immediate 
followers  gave  it  to  be  understood  what  those  principles  really 
were.  A  hermeneutical  work  by  Flacius  Illyricus  did  appear 
in  1567 — entitled,  Clavis  Scripturse  Sacne — somewhat  cum 
brous  indeed  (comprising,  along  with  his  explanation  of  Scrip 
ture  figures  and  expressions,  two  large  volumes,)  and  in  cer 
tain  parts  not  a  little  prolix ;  but  strong  and  earnest  in  its 
advocacy  of  the  great  principle  now  under  consideration,  and 
8 


86  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

for  the  period  altogether  a  respectable  and  useful  production. 
It  stood  alone,  however,  in  the  16th  century,  and  was  not 
followed  up,  as  it  should  have  been,  by  Biblical  students  of  a 
more  strictly  exegetical  and  less  controversial  spirit.  The  au 
thor  himself  in  this,  as  in  his  other  works,  was  too  much  in 
fluenced  by  doctrinal  prepossession  and  interest, — although 
he  justly  condems  Papists  and  sophists  on  this  account,  who 
(he  says)  "pick  out  select  passages  from  the  sacred  books  at 
their  own  pleasure,  and  combine  them  together  again  in  the 
most  arbitrary  manner;  so  that  they  speak,  indeed,  in  the 
plain  words  of  Scripture,  but  at  the  same  time  utter  their  own 
thoughts,  not  those  of  Scripture." 

It  is  proper  to  note,  however,  that  on  this  very  point — the 
point  in  respect  to  which  the  Reformation  wrought  so  benefi 
cial  a  change — Dr.  Campbell  pronounces  a  most  severe  and 
caustic  judgment  against  Beza,  one  of  the  most  learned  and 
able  expositors  of  the  Reformation ;  he  charges  him  with  al 
lowing  his  doctrinal  tendencies  to  impart  an  improper  bias  to 
his  translation  and  notes.  It  cannot  be  questioned,  we  think, 
that  Beza  did  lay  himself  open  to  objection  on  this  ground, 
and  his  adversary  Castalio  proved  himself  quite  ready  to  take 
advantage  of  it.  Some  of  the  examples  produced  by  Castalio, 
and  reproduced  by  Campbell,  are  certainly  instances  of  wrong 
translation  and  false  exposition,  such  as  but  too  clearly  origi 
nated  in  undue  doctrinal  bias.  But  neither  is  it  quite  fair, 
with  Campbell,  to  ascribe  them  all  to  this  source,  nor  are  they 
such  as  to  merit  that  bitter  acrimony  which  pervades  the  cri 
tique,  and  which  looks  more  like  the  expression  of  personal 
antipathy  to  Beza  for  the  kind  of  doctrines  he  espoused,  than 
for  occasional  indiscretion  in  the  way  of  introducing  them. 
That  something  of  this  sort  did  mingle  in  Campbell's  animad 
versions,  one  can  scarcely  doubt,  not  only  from  the  pungency 
of  their  general  tone,  but  also  from  the  evident  desire  betrayed 
in  some  of  the  examples  to  aggravate  as  much  as  possible  the 
charge  of  bad  faith: — As  when,  in  regard  to  Beza's  rendering 
^yjlt  in  Acts  ii-  27,  by  cadaver  in  his  first  edition,  he  is  re 
presented  as  quite  singular  and  arbitrary,  while  for  that  sense 
(though  in  itself,  we  believe,  a  wrong  one)  Beza  produces  the 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  87 

authority  of  Jerome;  and  Suicer,  in  his  Thesaurus,  says  of  it, 
Qace  Beza  in  prima  editione  sua  RECTE  interpretatus  erat, — 
referring,  as  Beza  had  done  before  him,  to  Virgil  ^En.  iii., 
Animamque  sepulchre  condimus.  So,  again,  in  regard  to  the 
word  ^s^oorov^avrec,  in  Acts  xiv.  23,  which  Beza  renders  per 
suffragia  creassent,  Dr.  Campbell  can  see  nothing  in  the  per 
suffragia  but  Beza's  desire  to  thrust  in  his  own  views  respect 
ing  the  popular  election  of  ministers.  Beza,  however,  only 
professes  to  give  what  he  held  to  be  the  full  and  proper  im 
port  of  the  word,  and  what  was  undoubtedly  its  original  mean 
ing;  as  Suicer  also  admits,  when  he  says,  it  designates,  ac 
cording  to  its  primary  signification,  "an  election,  quse  fit  per 
suffragia  manuum  extensione  data" — eligere  per  suffragia  ad 
Episcopatum — a  practice,  he  truly  remarks,  which  long  sur 
vived  in  the  Church.  It  may  be  questioned,  whether  the  word 
should  have  this  definite  meaning  ascribed  to  it  in  the  passage 
under  consideration,  as  the  word  was  often  used  in  the  more 
general  sense  of  designating  or  appointing.  Suicer  himself 
thinks  it  does  not;  but  Erasmus  had  already  translated  cum 
suffragiis  creassent,  and  the  same  sense  is  vindicated  by  Ra- 
phelius,  who  supports  it  by  examples  from  profane  writers ;  to 
say  nothing  of  Doddridge  and  others  in  later  times.  There 
is,  therefore,  no  just  reason  for  charging  Beza  with  bad  faith, 
as  if,  in  ascribing  such  a  sense  to  the  word,  he  deliberately 
tampered  with  the  integrity  of  Scripture.  These  remarks 
have  been  introduced  merely  for  the  purpose  of  guarding 
against  what  appears  an  exaggerated  representation  of  Beza's 
partiality,  and  of  correcting  the  too  depreciatory  estimate 
formed  by  Dr.  Campbell  of  his  merits  as  an  interpreter  of 
Scripture. 

It  may  be  confidently  affirmed,  that  the  parties,  who,  next 
to  the  Papists,  have  erred  most  through  doctrinal  bias  in  per 
verting  and  narrowing  the  proper  import  of  Sacred  Scripture, 
have  been  the  elder  Socinians  and  the  modern  Rationalists. 
These,  if  not  the  only,  are  at  least  the  chief  parties  who  from 
the  ranks  of  Protestantism,  and  under  a  show  of  learning, 
have  systematically  tampered  with  the  sense  (sometimes  even 
with  the  text)  of  Scripture ;  and  have  sought  to  obtain  from. 


88  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

it  something  else  or  something  less  than  that  which  the  words 
by  a  natural  interpretation  yield.  But  the  arts  plied  for  this 
purpose  have  signally  failed.  The  forced  interpretations  and 
arbitrary  methods  of  the  Socinian  party  have  been  obliged  to 
give  way.  By  the  establishment  of  a  more  accurate  criticism, 
by  sounder  principles  of  interpretation,  and  a  more  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  original  languages,  it  has  been  found 
that  Scripture  will  not  surrender  up  any  of  its  peculiar  doc 
trines;  so  that,  as  has  been  remarked  by  Winer,1  "the  con 
troversies  among  interpreters  have  usually  led  back  to  the  ad 
mission,  that  the  old  Protestant  views  of  the  meaning  of  the 
sacred  texts,  are  the  correct  ones."  These  views  are  there, 
the  Rationalists  of  a  past  generation  confessed,  though  only 
by  way  of  accommodation  to  the  antiquated  notions  and  doc 
trinal  beliefs  of  the  Jews,  not  as  being  in  themselves  absolutely 
true  or  strictly  Divine: — they  are  there,  the  Rationalists  of 
the  present  day  still  admit,  but  only  as  the  temporary  and  im 
perfect  forms  of  the  truth,  suited  to  an  immature  age,  now  to 
be  supplanted  by  higher  and  worthier  conceptions.  We  thank 
them  both  for  the  admission ;  in  that  we  have  the  confession 
of  those  whom  nothing  but  the  force  of  truth  could  have  con 
strained  to  own,  that  the  doctrines  of  the  orthodox  faith  are 
those  which  are  elicited  from  Scripture  by  the  grammatical 
rendering  and  fair  interpretation  of  its  words.  And  by  this 
faith  it  behooves  us  to  abide — till,  at  least,  He  who  gave  it  may 
be  pleased  to  give  us  another  and  better. 

The  principle,  however,  of  abiding  in  interpretations  of 
Scripture  by  the  grammatical  sense,  not  only  requires  a  spirit 
of  fairness,  as  opposed  to  a  doctrinal  bias  or  polemical  interest, 
but  also  a  spirit  of  discrimination  in  regard  to  the  various  ele 
ments,  the  Lexical  and  Syntactical  peculiarities,  by  the  ob 
servance  of  which  the  real  grammatical  sense  is  to  be  ascer 
tained.  It  is  obvious,  that  if  no  proper  discrimination  is  made 
between  the  later  and  the  more  classical  Greek — if  due  respect 
is  not  had  to  the  Hebraistic  element,  which  appears  in  some  of 
the  phrases  and  constructions  of  New  Testament  Scripture — if 
either  the  more  distinctive  meanings  of  particular  words,  or 

1  Litteratur  Zeitung,  No.  44. 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  89 

the  characteristic  peculiarities  of  individual  writers  are  over 
looked,  failures  and  mistakes  in  a  corresponding  degree  will 
inevitably  be  made  in  the  exhibition  of  the  correct  meaning. 
From  deficiencies  in  one  or  more  of  these  respects  it  is  possi 
ble  to  give  an  unfair  and  erroneous  view  of  a  passage,  not  only 
without  any  improper  bias  prompting  one  to  do  so,  but  even 
with  the  most  honest  purpose  of  attaining  to  correctness,  and 
many  qualifications  to  aid  in  accomplishing  it.     When  the 
Apostle  Paul,  for  example,  in  Gal.  ii.  2,  speaks  of  going  up  to 
Jerusalem  xara  dxoxdjitrfev — if,  from  undue  regard  to  classical 
analogy,  we  should  interpret  with  the  learned  Hermann,  ex- 
plicationis  causa — for  the  purpose,  that  is,  of  rendering  cer 
tain  explanations  to  parties  residing  there,  we  should  certainly 
not  give  what  is  either  the  grammatical  sense  of  the  expres 
sion,  or  what  accords  with  the  Apostle  Paul's  use  of  the  term 
&~oxdAi)<f>iz',  by  whom  it  is  always  employed  in  the  higher 
sense  of  a  Divine  communication.     And  in  such  an  expression 
it  is  not  so  much  classical  analogy,  as  scriptural,  and  we  may 
even  say  Pauline,  usage,  that  must  determine  the  exact  im 
port.     It  is  in  fact,  as  formerly  stated,  very  much  from  the 
more  careful  and  discriminating  attention,  that  has  latterly 
been  paid  to  the  various  peculiarities  both  of  the  Greek  lan 
guage  generally,  and  of  the  New  Testament  style  and  diction 
in  particular,  that  advances  have  been  made  in  precision  and 
accuracy  of  interpretation.     Nor  should  it  be  forgotten,  in 
strictly  critical  expositions,  what  has  been  justly  remarked  by 
Mr.  Ellicot  in  his  preface  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  that 
"in  the  Holy  Scriptures  every  peculiar  expression,  even  at 
the  risk  of  losing  an  idiomatic  turn,  must  be  retained.     Many 
words,  especially  the  prepositions,  have  a  positive  dogmatical 
and  theological  significance,  and  to  qualify  them  by  a  popular 
turn,  or  dilute  them  by  a  paraphrase,  is  dangerous  in  the  ex 
treme." 

3.  Assuming,  however,  what  has  been  stated — assuming 
that  our  primary  object  in  interpreting  Scripture,  should  be 
to  ascertain  what  sense  the  words  of  every  passage  may,  by  a 
fair  and  grammatical  interpretation,  and  in  reality  do  yield: 
assuming,  moreover,  that  we  both  know  and  are  disposed  to 

8* 


90  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

keep  in  view  the  more  distinctive  peculiarities  belonging  in 
•whole  or  in  part  to  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  there 
are  still  guiding  principles  of  great  importance  to  be  remem 
bered  and  followed,  especially  in  those  parts  that  have  some 
degree  of  difficulty  about  them.  One  of  these,  which  we  there 
fore  specify  as  the  third  point  to  be  noticed  in  this  connexion, 
is  the  regard  that  should  be  had  to  the  simplicity  which  cha 
racterizes  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  "The  excel 
lence  of  an  interpreter,"  says  Ernesti,  justly, "  consists  much  in 
simplicity;  and  the  more  any  interpretation  bears  the  mark  of 
facility,  and  it  appears  as  if  it  ought  to  have  struck  the  reader 
before,  the  more  likely  is  it  to  be  true.  ^Paocov  TO  dtyOst;, 
says  Lycurgus;  and  Schultens,  in  his  Preface  to  Job,  well  re 
marks  that  the  seal  of  truth  is  simple  and  eternal." 

It  is  necessary,  howevervto  explain  here.  The  simplicity 
that  should  characterize  our  interpretations  of  Scripture  is 
very  different  from  shallowness,  or  from  what  lies  entirely  on 
the  surface  and  is  found  without  difficulty.  On  the  contrary, 
great  skill  and  study  may  often  be  required  to  come  at  it. 
The  simplicity  we  speak  of  is  the  proper  counterpart  of  the 
simplicity  of  Scripture  itself — a  simplicity  that  is  compatible 
with  the  most  profound  thought  and  the  most  copious  mean 
ing — and  which  had  its  ground  partly  in  the  circumstances, 
and  partly  in  the  design  of  the  sacred  penmen.  In  respect 
to  their  circumstances,  the  position  they  occupied  was  that  of 
tlie  comparatively  humbler  ranks  of  life;  they  lived  and 
thought  in  a  simple,  as  contra-distinguished  from  an  artificial 
state  of  society.  Their  manners  and  habits,  their  modes  of 
conception,  and  forms  of  speech,  are  such  as  usually  belong 
to  persons  similarly  circumstanced;  that  is,  they  partake,  not 
of  the  polish  and  refinement,  the  art  and  subtlety,  which  too 
commonly  mark  the  footsteps  of  high  cultivation  and  luxuri 
ous  living,  but  of  the  free,  the  open,  the  natural — as  of  per 
sons  accustomed  frankly  to  express,  not  to  conceal  their  emo 
tions,  or  to  wrap  their  sentiments  in  disguise.  On  this  ac 
count — because  written  by  persons  of  such  a  type,  and  de 
picting  characters  and  events  connected  with  such  a  state  of 
society,  the  narratives  of  Scripture  are  pre-eminent  above  all 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  91 

other  writings  for  their  simplicity;  they  are  nature  itself,  in 
its  unvarnished  plainness  and  clear  transparency;  and  from 
this  they  derive  a  charm,  which  is  more  or  less  felt  in  every 
bosom.  But  what  so  strikingly  characterizes  the  narrative 
portions  of  Scripture,  has  also  given  its  impress  to  the  others; 
the  whole  are  pervaded  by  the  direct,  the  guileless  simplicity 
of  men,  who  had  to  do  with  the  realities  of  life,  and  were  wont 
to  speak  as  from  heart  to  heart. 

But  if  the  circumstances  of  the  sacred  writers  tended  to 
produce,  the  design  with  which  they  wrote  expressly  called 
for,  this  simplicity  in  writing;  and,  indeed,  secured  it.  It 
was  to  inform,  to  instruct,  to  save,  that  they  wrote — this  was 
their  one  grand  aim.  They  had  no  personal,  no  literary  ends 
in  view;  they  were  simply  witnesses,  recording  the  wonderful 
things  they  had  seen  and  heard,  or  ambassadors  conveying 
messages  from  another,  not  on  their  own  behalf,  but  for  the 
interests  of  their  fellow-men.  Hence,  they  naturally  lost 
themselves  in  their  subject.  Having  it  as  their  one  object  to 
unfold  and  press  this  upon  the  minds  of  others,  they  used,  as 
the  apostle  says,  great  plainness  of  speech — language  the  most 
natural,  the  most  direct,  the  most  fitted  to  convey  in  appro 
priate  and  impressive  terms  the  thoughts  of  their  heart.  The 
simplicity  which  thus  characterizes  their  writings  is  that  of 
men,  who  had  a  single  aim  in  view,  and  so  went  straight  to 
the  mark. 

Such  is  the  kind  of  simplicity  which  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament  possess;  and  corresponding  to  this  is  the  sim 
plicity  which  should  appear  in  our  manner  of  interpretation. 
How,  then,  should  it  appear?  Primarily,  no  doubt,  and 
mainly,  in  putting  a  natural  construction  on  their  words,  and 
ascribing  to  them,  precise  indeed  and  accurate,  yet  not  re 
condite  and  far-fetched  meanings.  As  in  writing  what  they 
were  moved  to  indite  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  sacred  penmen 
were  guided  by  the  simplicity  of  an  earnest  purpose  and  a 
lofty  aim,  so  we  should  prescribe  to  ourselves  (as  Titmann  has 
said)  this  quality  of  simplicity  as  a  rule,  and  not  recede,  ex 
cept  for  grave  reasons,  from  that  sense,  wlich  seems  to  be  the 
nearest  and  most  direct.  It  may  be  quite  possible,  in  certain 


92  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OP 

cases,  by  the  help  of  lexicons  and  other  appliances,  to  bring 
out  interpretations  of  an  ingenious  nature,  and  display  a  good 
deal  of  skill  in  supporting  them;  but  no  satisfactory  results 
shall  thus  be  obtained,  unless  the  meanings  put  upon  the  dif 
ferent  words,  and  the  sense  extracted  from  them,  are  such  as 
might  seem  appropriate  to  men  using  the  language  of  ordinary 
life,  and  using  it  with  the  view,  not  of  establishing  subtle  dis 
tinctions,  but  of  unfolding  in  the  most  effective  manner  the 
great  principles  of  truth  and  duty. 

This,  however,  has  respect  only  to  our  treatment  of  the 
language;  the  kind  of  thoughts  and  feelings  of  which  that 
language  might  be  expressive  is  another  thing.  Here  there 
was  room  for  infinite  depth  and  fulness.  It  is  of  the  nature 
of  grace,  in  all  its  operations,  to  give  a  subjective  elevation 
to  the  soul — to  increase,  not  only  its  appetency,  but  its  power 
of  discernment  also,  for  the  inward  and  spiritual;  and  by  the 
help  even  of  common  things,  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  simplest  language,  to  open  veins  of  thought,  and  awaken 
chords  of  feeling,  which  lie  beyond  the  reach  of  those  who  are 
living  after  the  course  of  nature.  In  the  spiritually  enlight 
ened  mind  there  is,  what  may  be  called,  a  divine  simplicity, 
which,  by  drawing  it  into  closer  connexion  and  sympathy  with 
the  mind  of  God,  discovers  to  it  views  and  meanings,  which 
would  otherwise  never  have  suggested  themselves.  So,  we 
see  with  the  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  themselves, 
that  not  unfrequently  they  discern  an  import  in  the  earlier 
dispensations  of  God,  or  indicate  thoughts  in  connexion  with 
the  facts  of  later  times,  such  as  would  not  have  occurred  to 
persons,  even  of  superior  and  cultivated  minds,  looking  from 
a  merely  natural  point  of  view.  Yet  not  the  less  in  what  they 
thus  discern  and  indicate — in  the  inferences  they  deduce,  and 
the  conclusions  they  build,  as  well  as  in  the  more  substantive 
part  of  their  announcements,  are  there  to  be  found  the  proper 
characteristics  of  simplicity — a  style  of  thought  and  expres 
sion,  direct,  plain,  natural. 

We  simply  add  further,  that  in  endeavouring  to  preserve 
and  copy  this  simplicity,  we  are  in  no  respect  precluded  from 
the  necessity  of  applying  careful  thought  and  the  resources 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  93 

of  solid  learning  to  the  work  of  interpretation.  It  is  only 
through  these,  indeed,  that  we  can  hope  to  surmount  the  diffi 
culties  which  lie  across  the  path  of  a  thoroughly  successful 
exegesis  of  Scripture.  In  aiming  at  this  we  have  to  throw 
ourselves  back  upon  the  times  and  circumstances  of  the  sacred 
penmen — to  realize  their  position — make  ourselves  familiar 
with  their  modes  of  thought  and  forms  of  expression,  so  as  to 
be  able  to  judge  what  would  have  been  for  them  a  natural  and 
fitting  mode  of  representation — what  forced  and  unnatural. 
And  this  we  can  only  expect  to  do  by  close  study,  and  the 
judicious  employment  of  the  resources  of  learning.  Not  the 
learning  merely  which  is  confined  to  the  use  of  grammars  and 
lexicons,  but  all  that  can  serve  to  throw  light  on  the  language, 
the  manners,  the  opinions  and  habits  of  those,  among  whom 
Christ  and  His  apostles  lived  and  spoke.  Whatever  is  calcu 
lated  to  aid  us  in  arriving  at  such  intimate  knowledge,  must 
also  be  serviceable  in  enabling  us  to  attain  to  a  proper  sim 
plicity  in  our  interpretations  of  Scripture. 

4.  It  is  only  following  out  the  same  line  of  thought,  and 
rendering  the  principle  it  involves  specific  in  a  particular  di 
rection,  when  we  mention  as  another,  &  fourth  rule  to  be  at 
tended  to  in  scriptural  interpretations,  that  in  settling  the 
meaning  of  words  we  must  have  respect  chiefly  to  the  usus 
loquendi,  the  current  sense,  or  established  usage  at  the  time — 
to  this  more  than  to  their  etymology.  The  reason  for  such  a 
rule  is  no  further  peculiar  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  than  that  they  are  of  a  popular  and  practical  nature ; 
which  rendered  it  expedient,  and,  in  a  sense,  necessary,  that 
words  and  phrases  should  be  taken  in  their  prevailing  signifi 
cation.  But  this  signification  often  differs  greatly  from  what 
might  be  conjectured  by  looking  simply  to  their  etymology. 
For  the  spoken  language  of  a  people  is  ever  passing  through 
certain  processes  of  change  and  fluctuation.  Many  of  its 
terms  depart  considerably,  in  the  course  of  time,  from  their 
original  import,  acquire  new  shades  of  meaning,  and  some 
times  even -become  so  entirely  transformed  in  their  progress, 
that  the  ultimate  use  scarcely  exhibits  a  trace  of  the  primal 
signification.  A  familiar  example  of  this  from  our  own  Ian- 


94  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

guage  is  to  be  found  in  the  word  villain — the  English  form  of 
the  Latin  villanus — originally,  the  poor  serf  attached  to  the 
villa  or  farm  of  a  proprietor — then,  from  the  usual  condition 
and  manners  of  such,  the  low,  selfish,  dishonest  peasant — and, 
finally,  when  villenage  in  the  original  sense  became  extinct, 
those  capable  of  the  most  base  and  dishonourable  actions — the 
morally  vile  and  mean.  Another  instance  is  furnished  by  a 
word,  which  by  a  strange  coincidence  has  had  the  like  fortune 
in  its  English,  that  it  seems  formerly  to  have  had  in  its  Greek 
form.  Sycophant  in  the  earlier  stages  of  our  literature  meant 
simply  an  accuser — by-and-by  &  false  accuser — but  in  process 
of  time  it  lost  this  sense,  and  came  to  signify  a  fawning  flat 
terer,  one  who  speaks,  not  ill  of  a  person  behind  his  back, 
but  good  of  him  before  his  face,  though  only  for  a  sinister 
and  selfish  purpose — the  only  sense  now  retained  by  the  word. 
In  like  manner,  the  Greek  aoxotfaur^,  according  to  the 
ancient  grammarians,  and  according  also  to  its  apparent  com 
position,  originally  a  fig -shower — an  informer  (as  is  said, 
though  there  is  no  certain  proof  of  such  a  use)  against  per 
sons  exporting  figs  from  Attica — then  a  common  informer — 
and  ultimately  a  false  accuser,  or  a  false  adviser,  its  only 
signification  in  classical  writings — while  in  the  New  Testament 
it  bears  the  still  further,  but  collateral  sense,  of  extorting 
money  under  false  pretences  (Luke  iii.  14.) 

Not  only  do  words  thus  in  current  use  sometimes  escape 
altogether  from  their  original  meaning,  but  there  are  also 
words,  which,  etymologically  considered,  ought  to  be  identical 
in  their  import,  and  should  admit  of  being  interchanged  as 
synonymous,  which  yet  come  to  differ  materially  as  to  their 
actual  use.  To  refer  only  to  one  example:  our  two  terms 
foresight  and  provision  are  each  made  up  of  two  words  pre 
cisely  similar  in  meaning — only  the  one  pair  of  Saxon,  the 
other  of  Latin  origin.  Undoubtedly  fore  by  itself  answers 
to  pro,  and  sight  to  vision;  yet  usage  has  appropriated  the 
two  words  to  different  ideas — the  one  to  indicate  what  is  anti 
cipated  in  the  future,  the  other  to  what  is  laid  up  or  done 
with  a  view  to  the  future.  A  foreigner  not  acquainted  with 
the  usage,  and  guided  merely  by  the  etymology,  might  readily 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  95 

substitute  the  one  for  the  other.  And  it  is  but  lately  that  I 
noticed  in  a  letter  written  from  abroad  the  expression  used 
respecting  some  one,  that  his  "  provisions  were  disappointed," 
evidently  meaning  by  provisions  what  should  have  been  ex 
pressed  by  foresight — the  anticipations  that  had  been  formed 
in  respect  to  the  future. 

A  similar  sense  of  incongruity,  as  in  this  case,  is  occasion 
ally  produced  in  one's  mind,  when  a  word  occurs  in  some  of 
our  older  writers,  which  since  their  day  has  undergone  a  con 
siderable  change  of  meaning — especially  if,  as  sometimes  hap 
pens,  it  is  employed  by  them,  not  only  in  its  original  accep 
tation,  but  also  in  conjunction  with  an  epithet,  which  seems 
to  indicate  what  is  incompatible  with  the  other.  Thus  in  one 
of  Caxton's  prefaces,  his  preface  to  a  translation  of  a  Life  of 
Charles  the  Great,  printed  by  him  in  1485,  beseeching  the 
reader's  indulgence  toward  his  translation,  he  says,  "Though 
there  be  no  gay  terms  in  it,  nor  subtle,  nor  new  eloquence, 
yet  I  hope,  that  it  shall  be  understood,  and  to  that  intent  I 
have  especially  reduced  (translated)  it  after  the  simple  cunning 
that  God  hath  lent  me," — the  simple  cunning,  two  words  that 
now  bear  antagonistic  meanings,  and  seem  incongruously 
united  together.  Certainly,  as  now  understood,  a  man  of 
cunning  is  any  thing  but  a  simple  person;  simplicity  and  cun 
ning  cannot  exist  together.  But  cunning  originally  implied 
nothing  of  a  sinister  kind.  It  has  its  root  in  the  German 
kennen,  to  know,  from  which  our  ken  comes,  and  merely  de 
noted  the  kenning,  or  knowing,  which  one  might  have  of  any 
thing  in  art  or  science.  Applied  to  works  of  art,  it  became 
nearly  synonymous  with  skill  or  power — approaching  to  an 
other  cognate  German  word,  koennen,  canning,  having  the 
power  or  ability  to  accomplish  any  thing — in  which  sense  it 
occurs  in  our  English  Bible,  "Let  my  right  hand  forget  her 
cunning,"  namely,  her  acquired  skill  to  play  upon  the  harp. 
It  is  only  in  comparatively  late  times,  that  the  word  lost  this 
meaning,  and  came  to  denote  that  sort  of  deceit,  which  is 
united  with  a  low  kind  of  skill  or  cleverness. 

Such  examples  show  how  cautiously  etymology  should  be  ap 
plied  in  determining  the  sense  of  words,  as  these  come  to  be 


96  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

used  in  a  living  tongue.  As  our  examples  have  been  chiefly 
taken  from  our  own  language,  it  may  be  added  in  passing,  that 
the  person,  who  did  most  to  turn  the  attention  of  English 
scholars  in  this  direction,  and  who  originated  inquiries  which 
have  led  to  many  interesting  and  profitable  results — Home 
Tooke — has  also  exhibited  in  some  of  his  deductions  one  of  the 
most  striking  examples  of  the  danger  of  pushing  such  inquiries 
to  excess,  and  of  being  guided  simply  by  the  etymological  ele 
ment  in  ascertaining  the  import  of  words.  In  the  spirit  of  a 
thorough-going  Nominalist,  he  maintains,  in  his  "Diversions 
of  Purley,"  that  as  words  are  merely  the  signs  of  ideas,  and 
as  all  our  words,  not  excepting  the  most  abstract,  are  ulti 
mately  traceable  to  a  meaning  derived  from  sensible  impres 
sions,  so  words  must  be  understood  not  in  their  acquired  or 
metaphorical,  but  always  substantially  in  their  primitive  and 
sensational  meaning: — consequently,  as  we  have  no  words, 
neither  have  we  any  ideas,  of  a  properly  absolute  description — 
both  alike  cleave  inseparably  to  the  dust.  So  in  regard  even 
to  truth:  "Truth  is  nothing  (he  says)  but  what  every  man 
troweth ;  whence  there  is  no  such  thing  as  eternal,  immutable, 
everlasting  truth;  unless  mankind,  such  as  they  are  at  present, 
be  also  eternal,  immutable,  and  everlasting;  and  two  persons 
may  contradict  each  other,  and  yet  both  speak  truth,  for  the 
truth  of  one  person  may  be  opposite  to  the  truth  of  another." 
This  is  carrying  the  subjective  principle  in  our  natures  to  an 
extravagant  height,  and  making  words  govern  ideas  in  a 
manner,  which  few,  we  should  think,  will  be  disposed  to  ac 
credit.  We  refer  to  it  merely  as  a  proof  of  the  folly  of  push 
ing  such  a  line  of  investigation  to  the  utmost,  and  making 
what  is  the  primary  ground  of  our  words  and  ideas  also  their 
ultimate  standard  and  measure.  Even  with  soberer  inquirers 
and  safer  guides  we  sometimes  perceive  an  excess  in  the  same 
direction.  It  may  be  noticed  occasionally  in  a  work,  which 
as  a  whole  is  marked  by  just  thought  and  fine  discrimination, 
and  will  repay  a  careful  perusal — Dr.  Trench  on  "the  Study 
of  Words."  Thus,  when  treating  of  kind,  he  says,  ua  land 
person  is  a  Icinned  person,  one  of  7«'w,  one  who  acknowledges 
and  acts  upon  his  kinship  with  other  men.  And  so 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  97 

is  m&nkinned.  In  the  word  is  contained  a  declaration  of  the 
relationship  which  exists  between  all  the  members  of  the  human 
family ;  and  seeing  that  this  relation  in  a  race  now  scattered  so 
widely  and  divided  so  far  asunder  can  only  be  through  a  com 
mon  head,  we  do  in  fact,  every  time  that  we  use  the  word  man 
kind,  declare  our  faith  in  the  common  descent  of  the  whole 
human  race,"  (p.  42.)  We  would,  indeed,  declare  it,  if,  as 
often  as  we  used  the  word,  we  had  respect  to  that  derivation, 
and  assented  to  the  principle  implied  in  it;  but  how  few  in 
reality  do  so!  In  the  language  of  every-day  life,  we  employ 
the  word  simply  as  current  coin — we  take  it  as  expressive  of 
the  multitude  of  beings  who  possess  with  ourselves  a  common 
nature,  but  at  the  same  time,  perhaps,  thinking  as  little  of 
their  common  origin,  as,  when  speaking  of  truth,  we  have  re 
spect  to  what  every  individual  troweth. 

But  in  all  this  we  point  only  to  the  excess.  There  can  be 
no  doubt,  in  regard  to  the  thing  itself,  that  it  is  of  great  im 
portance  to  attend  to  the  derivation  of  words,  and  that  with 
out  knowing  this  we  cannot  get  at  those  nicer  shades  of  mean 
ing  which  they  often  express,  or  make  a  thoroughly  intelligent 
and  proper  use  of  them.  In  the  great  majority  of  cases,  the 
etymological  is  also  the  actual  sense  of  the  word;  and  even 
when  the  acquired  or  metaphorical  use  comes  materially  to 
differ  from  the  primary  one,  the  knowledge  of  the  primary  is 
still  of  service,  as  most  commonly  a  certain  tinge  or  impress 
of  it  survives  even  in  the  ultimate.  How  often  does  a  refe 
rence  to  the  original  import  of  some  leading  word  in  a  phrase 
or  sentence,  enable  us  to  bring  out  its  meaning  with  a  point 
and  emphasis  that  we  must  otherwise  have  failed  to  exhibit! 
How  often,  again,  when  terms  nearly  synonymous  are  em 
ployed — so  nearly,  perhaps,  that  in  rendering  from  Greek  to 
English  we  can  only  employ  the  same  word  for  both, — does  a 
glance  at  the  fundamental  import  disclose  the  difference 
between  them!  Thus,  in  Gal.  vi.  2,  we  have  the  exhortation, 
"Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens,  and  so  fulfil  the  law  of  Christ;" 
and  presently  afterwards,  in  ver.  5,  we  have  the  announce 
ment,  "For  every  one  shall  bear  his  own  burden."  Even  an 
English  reader  may  see,  by  looking  at  the  connexion,  that  the 
9 


08  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

burden  in  the  one  case  cannot  be  the  same  with  what  is  meant 
by  it  in  the  other;  that  the  one,  as  Augustine  long  ago  re 
marked,  is  the  burden  of  one's  own  trials  or  infirmities,  which 
may  be  shared  in  by  others,  while  the  other  is  something  al 
together  proper  to  the  individual — the  burden  of  his  personal 
responsibility,  or  rather,  perhaps,  the  burden  of  his  personal 
state  and  destiny — which  he  must  bear  himself  alone.  But 
the  difference  at  once  presents  itself  when  we  turn  to  the  ori 
ginal,  where  we  find  two  distinct  words  employed,  each  having 
their  respective  shades  of  meaning.  The  burdens  we  are  to 
bear  one  for  another  are  ra  flapy,  the  weights,  the  things  which 
press  like  loads  upon  those  who  come  into  contact  with  them, 
and  in  a  manner  call  for  friendly  help;  but  the  burden  each 
one  has  to  bear  for  himself  is  TO  i'dtov  <pop-iov,  that  charge  of 
what  is  more  properly  his  own,  which  is  indissolubly  linked  to 
his  personal  consciousness  and  rationality,  and  of  which  no  one 
can  relieve  another. 

Again,  in  Rom.  ix.  15,  'EA&J0Q)  ov  di>  IXsco,  xal  ofareepfaa) 
ov  dv  olxTelpa),  we  have  two  verbs,  which  are  of  such  cognate 
meaning,  that  they  are  often  loosely  interchanged,  and  some 
times  the  one,  sometimes  the  other,  is  held  to  be  the  stronger 
expression.  Even  Titmann  (Synon.  I.  p.  122,)  and  after  him 
Robinson,  in  Lex.,  designates  I7soc  and  D.escv  as  stronger  than 
otxrtpfJLOZ,  and  oixrelpew,  because  the  former  carry  along  with 
them  the  additional  notion  of  beneficence,  a  desire  to  relieve 
the  miserable.  But  if  the  greater  strength  had  been  there,  we 
should  rather  have  expected  the  clauses  in  this  passage  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  to.  be  in  the  inverse  order — the  weaker 
to  be  first,  and  the  stronger  last.  A  more  exact  analysis 
justifies  the  existing  order;  for,  as  Fritzsche  has  justly  re 
marked  on  the  passage,  the  words  6  otxTep/j.6~  and  otxTsepstv 
signify  more  than  6  Ihoz  and  Ihew.  The  latter  stand  related 
to  7/tfo;-,  ttdofjLOt)  tidffxo/iat  (the  being  propitious,  kind,  or 
gentle;)  the  other  to  of  (the  oh!  the  cry  of  distress  or  sym 
pathy,)  and  Oixro^  (the  tender  pity  or  compassion,  of  which 
that  cry  is  one  of  the  first  and  most  natural  expressions.) 
Hence  6  e/soc  denotes  that  sorrow  which  a  kindly  disposition 
feels  at  the  misery  of  another,  and  is  the  proper  word  to  be 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND   PASSAGES.  99 

used  when  the  general  notion  of  mercy  is  to  be  expressed; 
6  ocxTep/JLoz,  however,  denotes  the  sorrow  awakened  by  the 
sense  of  another's  misery,  which  calls  forth  tears  and  lamen 
tations — not  pity  merely,  but  pity  in  its  keener  sensibilities 
and  most  melting  moods.  So  that  the  passage  referred  to  has 
in  it  a  real  progression :  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have 
mercy,  and  will  have  pity  on  whom  I  will  have  pity." 

An  expression  in  2  Cor.  xii.  9,  may  be  referred  to  as  an 
example  of  a  somewhat  different  kind.  The  apostle  there  says 
that  he  would  most  willingly  rather  glory  in  infirmities,  wa 
iTctaxr/vcocTfl  ITT  1/j.s  'q  duvapt$  TOU  Xpt0TOV9  the  full  import  of 
which  is  but  imperfectly  conveyed  by  the  common  rendering, 
"  that  the  power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me."  The  verb  em 
ployed  belongs  to  the  later  Greek,  and  is  found  in  Polybius 
in  the  sense  of  dwelling  in  a  tent,  or  inhabiting.  This,  how 
ever,  is  not  sufficient  to  explicate  the  meaning  of  the  word 
here;  nor  is  any  aid  to  be  obtained  from  the  Septuagint,  since 
it  does  not  occur  there.  It  can  only  be  explained  by  a  refe 
rence  to  what  is  said  in  Old  Testament  Scripture  of  the  re 
lation  of  the  Lord's  tabernacle  or  tent  to  His  people;  by  such 
a  passage,  for  example,  as  Isa.  iv.  6,  where  it  is  written,  "And 
there  shall  be  a  tabernacle  for  a  shadow  in  the  day  time  from 
the  heat;"  that  is,  the  Lord's  gracious  presence  and  protection 
spread  over  them  as  a  shelter.  So  in  Rev.  vii.  15,  the  Lord 
is  represented  as  "tabernacling  upon"  the  redeemed  in  glory. 
In  like  manner,  the  apostle  here  states  it  as  the  reason  why 
he  would  rejoice  in  infirmities,  that  thereby  Christ's  power 
might  tabernacle  upon  him — might  serve,  so  to  speak,  as  the 
abiding  refuge  and  confidence  in  which  he  should  hide  him 
self. 

We  need  not  multiply  examples  further  of  this  description. 
But  we  may  add,  that  for  those  who  would  know  generally  how 
much  may  be  gained  in  drawing  out  the  more  precise  and  deli 
cate  shades  of  meaning,  by  a  reference  to  the  radical  and 
primary  sense  of  words,  one  of  the  best  helps  will  be  found  to 
be  Bengel's  Gnomon,  which,  notwithstanding  occasional  fail 
ures,  is  in  a  short  compass  the  happiest  specimen  extant  of  this 
kind  of  interpretation.  This  should  be  taken  as  an  habitual 


100  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

companion.  But  occasionally,  also,  in  writers  of  a  more  po 
pular  cast,  good  examples  are  to  be  met  with  of  the  same  tact — 
in  none,  perhaps,  more  than  in  Leighton,  who,  if  he  sometimes 
strains  rather  unduly  the  original  meaning,  more  commonly 
turns  it  to  good  account,  and  that  in  a  natural  and  happy 
manner.  As  in  the  following  example:  "  Grod  resisteth  the 
proud — dvTtTdffcrsTa! — singles  it  out  as  His  grand  enemy,  and 
sets  Himself  in  battle  array  against  it;  so  the  word  is.  It 
breaks  the  ranks  of  men,  in  which  He  hath  set  them,  when 
they  are  not  subject — birOTa0ff6fJievo£, — as  the  word  is  before; 
yea,  pride  not  only  breaks  rank,  but  rises  up  in  rebellion 
against  God,  and  doth  what  it  can  to  dethrone  Him,  and 
usurp  His  place;  therefore  He  orders  his  forces  against  it;" 
and  so  on. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  passages  presenting  some  difficulty, 
or  aifording  scope  for  the  display  of  fancy  on  the  part  of  the 
interpreter,  it  is  quite  possible,  and,  indeed,  very  common,  to 
err  by  pressing  unduly  the  etymological  import  of  words. 
Horsley,  for  example,  gives  a  marked  somewhat  ludicrous  ex 
hibition  of  this,  when  rendering,  as  he  occasionally  does,  the 
Greek  word  iot&rat  by  the  English  word  derived  from  it, 
idiots,1 — a  word,  no  doubt,  bearing  much  the  same  significa 
tion  with  its  Greek  original — denoting,  first,  the  merely  private 
man,  as  contradistinguished  from  one  conversant  with  affairs 
and  offices  of  state;  then  a  person  of  rude  and  unskilled  con 
dition — in  manners  and  intellect  unpolished;  and,  finally,  one 
altogether  destitute  of  the  ordinary  powers  of  human  intelli 
gence — bereft  of  reason,  to  which  last  sense  it  has  long  been 
confined  in  the  common  intercourse  of  life.  So  that,  with 
Ilorsley,  to  turn  the  expression  used  of  the  apostles  in  Acts 
iv.  13,  "unlearned  men  and  idiots,"  is  only,  by  a  misplaced 
literalism,  to  give  a  false  representation  of  the  meaning.  Not 
much  better  is  his  rendering  and  interpretation  of  Luke  i.  4, 
"  That  thou  mightest  know  the  exact  truth  of  those  doctrines 
wherein  thou  hast  been  catechised" — xspe  wv  xar^yr^r^: — 
on  which  he  remarks,  "  St.  Luke's  own  Gospel,  therefore,  if 
the  writer's  own  word  may  be  taken  about  his  own  work,  is  an 

1  Tracts  against  Priestley,  p.  4G. 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  101 

historical  exposition  of  the  Catechism,  which  Theophilus  had 
learned  when  he  was  first  made  a  Christian.  The  first  two 
articles  in  this  historical  exposition  are,  the  history  of  the  Bap 
tist's  birth,  and  that  of  Mary's  miraculous  impregnation.  We 
have  much  more,  therefore,  than  the  testimony  of  St.  Luke, 
in  addition  to  that  of  St.  Matthew,  to  the  truth  of  the  fact  of 
the  miraculous  conception  ;  we  have  the  testimony  of  St.  Luke, 
that  this  fact  was  a  part  of  the  earliest  catechetical  instruction ; 
a  part  of  the  catechism,  no  douht,  which  St.  Paul's  converts 
learned  of  the  apostle."1  We  see  here,  too  plainly,  the  po 
lemical  interest,  endeavouring  to  make  the  utmost  of  an  argu 
ment,  but  overreaching  its  purpose  by  putting  an  undue  strain 
on  the  principal  word  in  the  passage.  That  our  word  cate 
chise  might  originally  correspond  to  the  Greek  word  xarr^sco, 
from  which  it  obviously  comes,  may  be  certain  enough;  but  it 
does  not  follow,  that  what  xarqyjco  imports,  as  used  by  St. 
Luke,  is  fairly  given  by  catechise,  in  its  current  acceptation. 
The  Greek  word  did  not  originally  bear  the  technical  import 
of  catechise;  it  meant,  to  sound  out  towards,  to  resound,  or 
sound  in  one's  ears;  then  more  specially  to  do  this  by  word 
of  mouth,  to  instruct,  and  ultimately  to  instruct  by  way  of 
question  and  answer.  As  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
Greek  writers  generally,  except  the  Fathers,  it  indicates  no 
thing  as  to  the  specific  mode  of  instruction  ;  and  to  represent 
it  by  the  word  catechise,  would  only  render  our  translation  in 
most  cases  unintelligible  or  ridiculous.  Thus,  at  Gal.  vi.  6, 
it  would  run,  "Let  him  that  is  catechised  in  the  word  commu 
nicate  to  him  that  catechiseth  in  ail  good  things;"  and  at 
Acts  xxi.  22,  "  But  they  have  been  catechised  concerning  thee, 
that  thou  teachest  all  the  Jews  to  forsake  Moses."  To  sound 
forth,  or  communicate  instruction,  in  the  active  voice,  and  in 
the  passive,  to  hear  by  way  of  rumour,  or  be  instructed  any 
how, — these  are  the  only  senses  which  the  word  bears  in  the 
New  Testament.  In  later  times  the  xo-r^ovfjAvoi.  were  those 
who  were  under  special  instruction  for  admission  to  the  Church, 
and,  as  we  might  say,  the  catechised  portion  in  Christian  com 
munities. 

1  Sermon  on  the  Incarnation. 

9* 


102  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

In  Dr.  Campbell's  Fourth  Preliminary  Dissertation  will  be 
found  some  good  remarks  and  apposite  illustrations  on  the 
subject  before  us.  Not,  however,  without  some  grounds  for 
exception.  His  jealousy  in  respect  to  etymological  considera 
tions  is  carried  to  excess,  and  in  some  of  the  instances  he  pro 
duces,  leads  him,  more  or  less,  into  error.  We  formerly  al 
luded  to  his  remarks  on  ^ztpoTovsco,  as  used  in  Acts  xiv.  23, 
and  his  severe  denunciation  of  Beza  for  so  far  giving  heed  to 
its  etymological  formation,  as  to  express  in  his  translation  a 
reference  to  the  mode  of  appointment  to  church  offices  by 
popular  election,  signified  by  holding  up  the  hand.  He  would 
exclude  everything  from  its  import  but  the  simple  idea  of  ap 
pointment,  although  in  the  only  other  passage  in  the  New 
Testament,  where  it  is  similarly  used  of  appointment  to  church 
offices  (2  Cor.  viii.  19,)  it  plainly  does  include  the  element  of 
popular  suffrage.  We  shall  rather  point,  however,  under  the 
present  division,  to  another  example,  in  which  Dr.  Campbell 
is  still  less  successful,  though  he  labours  hard  to  make  good 
his  point.  It  turns  on  the  word  TcpoytvctHTxa),  whether  this 
should  be  rendered,  as  its  component  elements  would  lead  us 
to  expect,  by  foreknow,  or  by  some  more  general  mode  of  ex 
pression.  Dr.  Campbell  holds,  it  should  be  less  strictly  taken 
in  Rom.  xi.  2,  where  we  read  in  our  common  version,  "  God 
hath  not  cast  away  His  people,  whom  He  foreknew"  (ov 
KpQ&p><0\)  he  would  separate  the  preposition,  7r/>6,  from  the 
verb,  and  also  impose  on  the  verb  itself  a  somewhat  different 
meaning, — that,  namely,  of  acknowledging  or  approving;  and 
thus  he  obtains  a,  no  doubt,  very  plain  and  intelligible  sense: 
"God  hath  not  cast  off  his  people,  whom  heretofore  lie  ac 
knowledged."  But  is  this  really  the  sense  intended  by  the 
apostle?  We  find  him  using  the  same  compound  verb  a  little 
before  at  ch.  viii.  29,  "Whom  He  did  foreknow  (o'&c  xpod-fvco,) 
them  He  also  did  predestinate;" — and  there  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  understand  it  otherwise  than  in  the  sense  of  fore 
knowing  given  to  it  by  our  translators,  being  plainly  used  of 
an  act  of  the  Divine  mind  toward  His  people,  prior  to  that  of 
their  predestination  to  blessing:  He  foreknew,  then  He  fore- 
appointed.  Is  there  any  necessity  for  departing  from  the 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.  103 

same  literal  sense  in  the  passage  before  us?  None  that  ap 
pears  worthy  of  notice.  Dr.  Campbell  has,  indeed,  said,  that 
to  speak  there  of  God's  people  as  those  whorilrHe  foreknew, 
"conveyed  to  his  mind  no  meaning  whatever;"  and,  by  a 
strange  oversight  in  so  acute  a  mind,  he  founds  his  statement 
on  the  assertion,  that  to  foreknow  "always  signifies  to  know 
some  event  before  it  happens" — as  if  it  might  not  equally  im 
port,  when  used  in  reference  to  an  act  of  God,  to  know  a  per 
son  before  he  exists.  Presently,  however,  he  resorts  to  another 
consideration,  which  implies  a  virtual  abandonment  of  the 
other,  and  objects,  that  "God  knew  Israel  before,  in  the  ordi 
nary  meaning  of  the  word  knoiving,  could  never  have  been 
suggested  as  a  reason  to  hinder  us  from  thinking,  that  He 
would  never  cast  them  off;  for,  from  the  beginning,  all  na 
tions  and  all  things  are  alike  known  to  God."  True,  indeed, 
in  one  sense,  but  not  in  another.  They  were  not  all  alike 
known  to  God  as  destined  to  occupy  toward  Himself  the  same 
relation,  and  to  receive  the  same  treatment;  and  that  is  pre 
cisely  the  point  in  the  eye  of  the  apostle.  God  could  not 
cast  away  His  own  people,  whom  He  foreknew  as  His  own. 
Their  friendly  relation  to  Him  being  descried  as  among  the 
certainties  of  the  coming  future,  nothing  in  that  future  could 
arise  to  hinder  its  accomplishment.  In  another  passage  (2 
Tim.  ii.  19)  of  quite  similar  import,  the  apostle  finds  [the 
ground  of  the  believer's  security  from  perdition  in  the  simple 
fact,  which  he  calls  a  seal,  that  "the  Lord  knoweth  them  that 
are  His" — a  thought  which  had  consoled  the  Psalmist  ages 
before,  as  appears  from  the  words  in  the  first  Psalm,  "The 
Lord  knoweth  the  way  of  the  righteous."  For  such  know 
ledge  necessarily  implies  a  corresponding  treatment.  "If 
the  way  of  the  righteous  is  known  by  God  as  the  omniscient, 
it  cannot  but  be  blessed  by  Him  as  the  righteous.  Hence, 
there  is  no  necessity  to  ascribe  to  know  the  sense  of  having 
care  and  affection  for,  loving,  which  it  never  properly  pos 
sesses.  It  is  enough,  if  only  God  with  His  foreknowledge  is 
not  shut  up  in  the  heavens ;  the  rest  flows  spontaneously  from 
His  nature,  and  does  not  need  to  be  particularly  mentioned." l 
1  Hengstenberg  on  Ps.  i. 


104  GENERAL  RULES  FOR  INTERPRETATION  OF 

We  have  referred  under  this  division  to  so  many  illustra 
tive  examples,  on  the  one  side  and  the  other,  because  it  is 
chiefly  through  these,  that  the  danger  of  running  into  an  ex 
treme  is  made  apparent;  and  along  therewith  the  necessity  of 
care  and  skill  in  avoiding  it.  It  is,  no  doubt,  one  thing  to 
know,  in  what  direction  a  tendency  to  excess  in  such  a  matter 
lies,  and  another  thing  to  keep  clear  of  it.  Yet  it  will  be  of 
importance  to  remember,  that  while  one  should  always  seek 
to  be  acquainted  with  the  etymological  import  of  words,  this 
cannot  in  every  case  be  taken  for  the  actual  meaning;  this  is 
determined  by  the  current  usage,  which  must  be  ascertained 
and  adhered  to. 

So  far  as  concerns  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  or 
the  precise  meaning  and  interpretation  of  its  words,  the  general 
rules  and  principles  now  given  appear  to  comprise  all  that  is 
necessary.  They  will  serve  to  mark  out  the  course  of  inquiry 
that  must  be  pursued,  if  any  measure  of  success  is  to  be  at 
tained.  For  the  actual  result,  much  will  necessarily  depend 
upon  the  greater  or  less  degree  of  exegetical  tact  possessed 
by  the  student,  and  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been  cultivated 
by  personal  application  and  proper  exercise.  Hermeneutical 
skill,  like  skill  of  other  kinds,  must  not  only  have  something 
in  nature  to  rest  upon,  but  have  that  also  matured  by  diligent 
and  well-directed  practice,  without  which  no  proficiency  can 
be  expected. 

For  those  cases,  in  which  some  more  peculiar  difficulty  is 
felt  in  getting  at  the  precise  sense  of  a  passage,  there  must, 
first  of  all,  be  brought  into  play  the  requisite  qualifications 
connected  with  the  application  of  the  rules  and  principles 
already  laid  down.  There  must  be  an  acquaintance  with  the 
original  language,  in  its  proper  idioms,  the  etymology  and 
usage  of  its  words — a  knowledge  of  the  distinctive  peculiari 
ties  of  the  writer,  in  whose  productions  the  passage  occurs — 
of  the  circumstances  of  the  time  in  which  he  wrote,  its  man 
ners  and  customs,  modes  of  thought  and  principles  of  action 
— in  a  word,  an  insight  into  the  nature  of  the  language  em 
ployed,  and  the  various  things,  of  a  circumstantial  description, 
fitted  to  tell  upon  the  views  of  the  writer  and  his  more  im- 


PARTICULAR  WORDS  AND  PASSAGES.         105 

mediate  circle.  It  is  clear,  that  without  knowledge  of  such 
compass  and  variety,  no  one  can  reasonably  expect  to  succeed 
in  dealing  with  a  passage,  which  involves  any  difficulty  in 
respect  to  the  proper  construction  of  its  words,  or  the  real 
meaning  which  they  bear.  But  it  is  possible,  that  where  so 
much  is  possessed  and  used,  the  difficulty  may  still  fail  to  be 
overcome.  In  that  case,  the  next,  and  more  special  thing  that 
should  be  done,  is  to  look  very  "carefully  and  closely  to  the 
connexion  in  which  the  passage  stands — which  will  often  do 
much  to  remove  the  darkness  or  uncertainty  that  rests  upon 
its  import.  Then,  let  the  peculiar  phrase  or  construction, 
which  occasions  the  difficulty,  be  examined  in  connexion  with 
others  of  the  same,  or  nearly  the  same  description,  in  what 
remains  besides  of  the  individual  writer; — or  if  none  such  may 
occur,  then  in  other  parts  of  Scripture;  and,  still  again,  in 
other  writings  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  periods  not  remote 
from  it.  The  nearer  to  the  passage  itself,  then  the  nearer  to 
him  who  indited  it,  that  any  light  can  be  found,  the  more 
likely  to  prove  satisfactory.  So  that  the  examination  should 
usually  be  made  in  the  order  of  his  own  writings  first,  next  of 
the  other  inspired  productions,  and,  finally,  of  writings  as  near 
as  possible  to  the  age  and  circumstances  in  which  he  wrote. 
In  such  investigations,  we  need  scarcely  say,  all  available 
helps,  whether  ancient  or  modern,  should  be  brought  into  re 
quisition.  Access  to  these  in  any  considerable  degree  must 
always  be  a  special  advantage  to  those  who  enjoy  it.  But 
even  where  it  is  very  imperfectly  possessed,  no  inconsiderable 
progress  may  be  made  in  the  exact  knowledge  and  interpreta 
tion  of  Scripture,  if  this  Scripture  itself  is  but  carefully  studied, 
with  a  few  good  grammars  and  lexicons;  as,  when  so  used,  it 
will  be  found  to  supply  many  materials  for  interpreting  itself. 
Let  no  one,  therefore,  wait  till  he  has  all  requisite  means 
within  his  reach;  but  let  each  rather  endeavour  to  make  the 
most  profitable  use  of  what  he  can  command — in  the  persua 
sion,  that  though  he  may  be  far  from  accomplishing  all  he 
could  wish,  he  will  still  find  his  labour  by  no  means,  in  vain. 
And,  however  he  may  stand  as  to  inferior  resources,  let  him 
never  forget  to  seek  the  enlightening  and  directing  grace  of 


106  TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION. 

the  Holy  Spirit,  who  to  the  humble  and  prayerful  mind  will 
often  unlock  secrets,  which  remain  hid  to  the  most  learned 
and  studious. 


SECTION  FIFTH. 

OF  FALSE  AND  TRUE  ACCOMMODATION;  OR,  THE  INFLUENCE 
THAT  SHOULD  BE  ALLOWED  TO  PREVAILING  MODES  OF 
THOUGHT  IN  FASHIONING  THE  VIEWS  AND  UTTERANCES  OF 
THE  SACRED  WRITERS. 

THE  previous  discussions  have  had  respect  mainly  to  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  principles  or  rules 
necessary  to  be  followed,  in  order  to  our  arriving  at  the  pre 
cise  and  proper  import  of  its  words.  There  are,  however, 
elements  of  various  kinds,  not  properly  of  a  linguistic  nature, 
which  must  yet,  according  to  the  influence  allowed  them,  ex 
ercise  an  important  bearing  on  the  sense  actually  obtained 
from  the  words  and  phrases  of  Scripture — elements,  which 
will  affect  the  interpretation  of  some  parts  of  Scripture  more 
than  others,  or  tend  to  modify  the  meaning  put  on  certain  of 
its  passages.  The  points  referred  to  less  properly  concern 
the  explanation  of  particular  terms,  than  the  nature  of  the 
ideas  contained  in  them.  They  respect  the  question,  what  is 
there  precisely  of  truth  to  be  received,  or  of  practical  instruc 
tion  to  be  obeyed,  in  the  portions  which  have  been  analyzed 
and  explained?  It  is  quite  possible,  that  one  may  know  with 
perfect  correctness  every  word  in  a  passage,  and  yet,  from 
some  false  conceptions  or  misleading  bias,  may  have  a  very 
imperfect  apprehension  of  its  real  purport,  or,  perhaps,  give 
a  wrong  turn  to  the  thoughts  it  expresses.  It  is  necessary, 
therefore,  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  already  unfolded,  to 
proceed  to  this  higher  line  of  hermeneutical  inquiry,  and  en 
deavour,  if  possible,  to  set  up  some  proper  landmarks  upon  it. 

I.  Now,  the  first  point  that  here  calls  for  investigation  is, 
the  general  one,  in  what  relations  the  sentiments  of  the  sacred 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION.  107 

writers  stand  to  the  spirit  of  their  age — to  its  prevailing  modes 
of  thought  and  popular  beliefs.  Were  they  in  any  material 
respect  modified  by  these?  Or  did  they  pursue  an  altogether 
independent  course — never  bending  in  aught  under  the  pre 
vailing  current,  if  this  at  all  deviated  from  the  exact  arid  na 
tural  line  of  things?  Or,  if  they  did  to  some  extent  accom 
modate  themselves  to  this,  how  far  might  we  expect  the  ac 
commodation  to  go?  At  a  comparatively  early  period  a 
certain  doctrine  of  accommodation  was  introduced  with  refer 
ence  to  representations  in  Scripture — which  Origen,  and  others 
of  the  Fathers,  were  wont  to  regard  as  spoken  or  done  *ar' 
otxovojulav,  by  way  of  dispensation,  or  through  ffopcard^affe^ 
a  condescension,  or  an  accommodation  to  the  position  and  in 
firmities  of  the  persons  addressed.  Advantage,  it  was  believed, 
was  taken  of  these,  in  order  the  more  readily  to  gain  the  con 
fidence  or  reach  the  understanding  of  those  who  were  in  an 
unfit  state  for  receiving  the  naked  truth.  It  is  difficult  to 
say  precisely,  how  far  the  Fathers,  who  introduced  this  princi 
ple,  meant  to  carry  it,  in  respect  to  the  teaching  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles;  for  they  are  neither  very  explicit  nor  al 
together  consistent  in  their  statements  upon  the  subject.  For 
the  most  part  they  appear  simply  to  have  understood  by  it  an 
adaptation  in  the  form  of  Divine  communications  to  the  modes 
of  human  thought  and  speech,  while  the  matter  not  the  less 
remained  true  and  divine;  as  in  conduct  the  Apostle  Paul 
became  as  a  Jew  to  the  Jews  (1  Cor.  ix.  20,)  or  externally 
conformed  himself  to  their  manners  and  customs,  without  in 
the  least  detracting  thereby  from  the  claims  and  principles  of 
the  Gospel.  In  this  way,  Scripture  was  explained  as  accom 
modating  itself  to  men's  infirmities  or  habits,  when  it  speaks 
of  God  as  possessing  human  parts  and  passions,  or  uses  para 
bles,  proverbs,  and  familiar  images,  to  set  forth  to  our  view 
things  spiritual  and  divine.  But  occasionally  they  seem  to 
indicate  an  application  of  the  principle  beyond  this  limit,  and 
to  include  the  matter  of  what  was  taught  or  done,  as  well  as 
the/orm:  as  when  Origen  (in  his  Priricipia,  L.  iv.)  speaks  of 
mystic  dispensations  employed  by  God,  which,  in  their  literal 
sense  or  obvious  meaning,  were  opposed  to  enlightened  faith 


108  TRUE  A1S7D  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION. 

and  reason — or  when  Jerome,  in  his  Epistle  to  Augustine, 
teaches  that  Paul,  as  well  as  Peter,  feigned  himself  to  be  a 
Jew,  and  yet  reproved  Peter  at  Antioch  by  what  he  calls 
honesta  dispensatio,  which  the  one  administered,  and  the 
other  submitted  to  feignedly,  that  they  might  show  the  pru 
dence  of  apostles.  It  requires  no  arguments  to  prove,  that 
honest  dispensations  of  this  sort  but  ill  accord  with  that  godly 
simplicity,  which  we  are  wont  to  ascribe  to  the  apostles,  and 
would,  if  generally  believed  in,  somewhat  shake  their  credit 
as  inspired  writers.  Fortunately,  however,  the  Fathers  erred 
comparatively  little  in  this  direction;  and  it  was  rather  from 
inadvertence,  or  from  perplexity  in  dealing  with  particular 
passages,  than  from  any  general  laxity  of  principle,  that  they 
have  been  occasionally  betrayed  into  rash  and  unguarded  state 
ments  upon  the  subject. 

It  was  reserved  for  modern  times  to  apply  the  principle  of 
accommodation  to  the  teachings  of  Scripture  in  the  full  and 
proper  sense,  and  to  represent  Christ  Himself  and  the  apostles 
as  pandering  to  the  mistaken  views  and  narrow  prejudices  of 
their  time.  Wetstein  was  among  the  first  to  lay  down  a  for 
mal  principle  of  this  sort,  although  Grotius  in  some  of  his 
comments  had  before  virtually  acted  on  it.  But  Wetstein,  in 
a  little  work  on  the  criticism  and  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament  (A.D.  1724,)  gave  it  out  as  a  canon  of  interpreta 
tion,  in  respect  to  those  passages,  which  seem  to  be  at  variance 
with  truth,  or  with  each  other,  that  the  sacred  writers  should 
be  viewed  "as  not  always  expressing  their  own  opinion,  nor 
representing  matters  as  to  their  real  state,  but  occasionally 
also  expressing  themselves  according  to  the  sentiments  of  others, 
or  the  sometimes  ambiguous,  sometimes  erroneous,  opinions  of 
the  multitude."  And  he  indicates,  that  this  mode  of  explana 
tion  should  be  especially  adopted  in  regard  to  what  is  often 
said  in  the  New  Testament  of  sacrifices,  of  Satan,  of  angels 
and  demons.  Shortly  after,  Semler  (both  in  a  new  edition  of 
Wetstein's  treatise,  and  in  works  of  his  own,  took  up  the  prin 
ciple  of  interpretation  thus  announced,  and  with  character 
istic  ardour  and  industry  applied  it  to  the  explanation  of  the 
New  Testament  writings.  His  fundamental  position  was,  that 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION*.  109 

the  exposition  of  the  New  Testament  should  be  pre-eminently 
historical;  that  is,  that  one  should  have  respect  to  the  spirit 
ual  conditions  of  the  time — the  prevailing  thoughts  and  opi 
nions,  as  well  as  external  circumstances,  of  those  among  whom 
Christ  and  His  apostles  lived;  and  these  he  represented  to  be 
such,  that  the  truth  could  not  always  be  spoken  as  it  should 
have  been,  and  required  a  use  to  be  made  of  Old  Testament 
Scripture  in  reference  to  Gospel  events,  such  as  cannot  be 
justified  on  principles  of  grammar  or  grounds  of  abstract  rea 
son.  Our  Lord  and  His  apostles,  therefore,  spoke  at  times 
ex  vulgari  opinione,  not  precisely  according  to  the  truth  of 
things;  yet  so  as  that,  by  instituting  a  comparison  of  the  dif 
ferent  parts  of  their  writings,  and  making  the  more  general 
and  comprehensive  rule  the  more  special  and  peculiar,  we  may 
arrive  at  the  ultimate  and  permanent  ideas  of  the  Gospel. 
The  door  was  thus  fairly  opened  for  exegetical  license, — and 
from  Semler's  day  to  this,  there  have  never  been  wanting  men 
fulhy  disposed  to  avail  themselves  of  the  liberty  which  it  in 
vited  them  to  take.  Loose  as  Semler's  views  were,  and  great 
as  was  the  havoc  which  he  carried  into  the  received  views  of 
Scripture,  he  lived  to  see  (with  grief,  it  is  said)  others  far  out 
stripping  him  in  the  same  line  of  accommodations.  By  degrees 
every  thing  was  reduced  to  a  subjective  standard;  and  if  in 
any  thing  an  interpreter  found  statements  recorded,  or  doc 
trines  taught,  which  did  not  accord  with  Ms  notions  of  the 
truth  of  things,  the  explanation  was  at  hand,  that  such  things 
had  found  a  place  in  Scripture  merely  on  a  principle  of  ac 
commodation;  the  people  at  the  time  were  capable  of  appre 
ciating  nothing  higher,  or  the  writers  themselves  as  yet  under 
stood  no  better.  And  so,  in  the  hands  of  many  on  the  Conti 
nent,  and  of  some  also  in  this  country,  of  some  here  still,  the 
proper  teaching  of  the  Gospel  came  to  be  reduced  to  the  scanty 
form  of  a  Sadducean  creed.  The  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  of 
the  Divine  Sonship  of  Messiah,  of  the  atonement,  of  the  per 
sonality  of  the  Spirit,  of  a  corporeal  resurrection  and  a  final 
judgment,  have  all  been  swept  away  by  the  abettors  of  the 
principle  under  consideration;  and  even  the  idea  of  Christian 
ity's  being  in  any  peculiar  sense  a  revelation  from  Heaven, 
10 


110  TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION. 

has  been  sometimes  represented  as  merely  a  mode  of  speech 
suited  to  the  time  of  its  appearance. 

Such  has  been  the  practical  result  of  the  accommodation 
theory,  or  the  historical  principle  of  interpretation  (as  it  has 
been  sometimes  called) — a  result  which  carries  along  with  it 
the  virtual  doom  of  the  principle  itself.  For,  obviously  enough, 
to  deal  in  such  an  arbitrary  and  magisterial  manner  with  sa 
cred  Scripture,  is  not  to  interpret,  but  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
it,  as  we  might  do  upon  any  human  composition,  and  receive 
or  reject  what  it  contains,  according  to  our  preconceived  no 
tions.  The  proper  revelation — the  real  standard  of  truth  and 
error,  is  in  that  case  within ;  we  stand  upon  essentially  infidel 
ground;  and  seeing  that  Scripture  as  much  contradicts,  as  co 
incides  with  our  views  of  things,  it  were  better  to  discard  it 
as  an  authority  altogether — treat  it  merely  as  a  help. 

Most  commonly,  however,  the  accommodation  principle  is 
confined  within  a  comparatively  narrow  range,  and  applied 
to  what  are  called  innocuous  errors.  So  Seiler,  for  example, 
in  his  Hermeneutics,  who  says,  that  in  such  a  matter  we  must 
be  careful  to  distinguish  between  innocuous  and  nocuous  er 
rors.  Among  the  innocuous  he  includes  chiefly  errors  of  an 
historical  and  chronological  kind — such  as  he  conceives  occur 
in  the  speech  of  Stephen,  Acts  vii. — and  exegetical  errors,  or 
false  interpretations  of  several  passages  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  were  erroneously  supposed  to  contain  what  the  wTords 
did  not  really  indicate.  So,  too,  Roserimuller,  in  his  Historia 
Interpretationis,  I.  p.  27,  who  thinks,  that  as  the  Jews  had  a 
fondness  for  something  out  of  the  direct  and  simple  style  of 
writing,  loved  to  exhibit  their  sentiments  in  an  allegorical 
dress,  and  to  seek  for  them  strained  and  fanciful  supports  in 
Scripture,  so  the  apostles  acted  wisely  in  adapting  themselves 
in  these  respects  to  the  genius  and  habits  of  their  countrymen. 
Whence  with  him,  and  many  others  in  this  country  and  Ame 
rica  (including  such  names  as  Moses  Stuart,  Home,  Adam 
Clarke,  Albert  Barnes,)  the  formula,  "that  it  might  be  ful 
filled,"  or  "then  was  fulfilled  what  was  spoken,"  is  held  to 
have  been  used  often  as  a  kind  of  Rabbinical  flourish,  an  em 
bellishing  of  the  narrative  or  discourse  with  quotations,  which, 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION.  Ill 

though  they  had  properly  another  sense,  yet  were  so  expressed 
as  to  admit  of  being  happily  applied  to  the  circumstances  and 
events  of  Gospel  history. 

But  would  this  really  have  been  a  wise,  or  even  a  justifiable 
procedure,  on  the  part  of  our  Lord  and  the  apostles?  Would 
such  a  fanciful  application  of  Scripture  have  been  an  innocu 
ous  error?  Is  it  so  light  a  thing  for  inspired  men  to  mis 
quote  the  writings  of  each  other?  It  is  precisely  to  their  use 
of  Old  Testament  Scripture — to  the  elucidations  they  give  of 
its  meaning,  and  the  specific  applications  they  make  of  its  se 
veral  parts,  that  we  are  indebted  for  our  more  certain  know 
ledge  of  its  design,  and  especially  for  our  insight  into  the  con 
nexion  that  subsists  between  the  Old  and  the  New  in  God's 
dispensations.  To  bring  looseness  and  ambiguity  into  such  a 
region  were  in  reality  to  destroy  all  certainty  of  interpreta 
tion,  and  open  the  door  on  every  hand  for  fanciful  conceits  or 
groundless  conjecture.  Surely  the  same  majestic  authority 
which  said  of  the  Old  Testament  writings,  "  And  the  Scrip 
ture  cannot  be  broken,"  virtually  said,  at  the  same  time,  It 
must  not  be  arbitrarily  dealt  with;  it  is  too  sacred  a  thing  to 
be  coupled  with  mock  fulfilments,  or  brought  into  connexion 
with  events,  to  which  it  bore  no  proper  reference.  And  the 
rather  may  we  thus  conclude,  when  we  think  of  the  slender 
nature  of  the  reasons  for  which,  it  is  supposed,  an  accommo 
dation  should  have  been  made.  To  give  fancied  ornateness  to 
a  discourse,  or  show  a  sort  of  Rabbinical  adroitness  in  the 
mere  handling  of  texts — and  thereby  to  win  for  the  moment 
a  readier  attention  to  what  they  said  or  wrote — were  these 
sufficient  motives  for  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  travestying 
the  great  laws  of  sound  exegesis,  and  bringing  confusion  into 
the  sense  of  ancient  Scripture?  No — we  may  rest  assured, 
they  knew  their  calling  better;  and  as  in  other  things  they 
were  not  afraid  to  meet  the  strongest  prejudices  of  their  coun 
trymen,  and  lay  the  axe  to  the  most  rooted  corruptions,  it  were 
folly  to  think,  that  in  this,  and  for  such  trivial  considerations, 
they  should  have  entered  into  compromises  about  the  truth. 
Least  of  all  could  they  be  guilty  of  such  improper  trifling  with 
the  oracles  of  God,  who  brought  it  as  one  of  their  heaviest 


112  TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION. 

charges  against  the  men  of  that  generation,  that  they  erred 
in  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  or  in  making  them  void  with 
their  own  traditions. 

We  hold  it,  therefore,  to  be  contrary  to  any  right  views  of 
the  mission  of  Christ  and  His  apostles,  to  suppose,  that  they 
in  such  a  sense  accommodated  themselves  to  the  modes  of 
thought  and  contemplation  around  them,  as  to  admit  error 
into  their  instructions — whether  in  respect  to  the  interpreta 
tion  of  Scripture,  or  in  respect  to  forms  of  opinion  and  articles 
of  belief.  "This,"  as  Heringa  has  justly  said  in  his  notes  to 
Seiler,  "were  consistent  neither  with  wisdom,  nor  with  ho 
nesty;  it  had  not  been  suited  to  the  case  of  extraordinary 
ambassadors  of  God,  furnished  with  such  full  powers,  and 
assisted  by  such  Divine  interposition  as  they  were.  There  is 
a  vast  difference  between  leaving  errors  untouched  which 
would  in  time  expire  either  of  themselves,  or  by  deeper  views 
of  the  very  doctrine  preached,  and  the  confirmation  of  the 
same  errors,  by  admitting  them  into  their  own  instructions." 
It  is,  plainly,  one  thing  to  desist  from  unfolding  a  doctrine, 
because  men  are  for  the  time  capable  of  apprehending  or 
bearing  it,  and  another  and  very  different  thing  to  counte 
nance  them  in  the  mistakes  and  delusions,  in  which  that  inca 
pacity  has  its  ground.  The  one  course,  in  either  respect,  was 
compatible  with  inspired  wisdom,  the  other  was  not ;  and  when 
ever  explanations  are  given,  which  would  involve  our  Lord 
and  His  apostles  in  the  formal  admission  or  inculcation  of 
what  is  in  itself  erroneous,  out  of  deference  to  existing  circum 
stances,  we  must  hold  it  to  be  a  false  accommodation:  since, 
if  knowingly  done  by  them,  it  must  have  been  in  the  sphere 
of  religious  instruction,  doing  evil  that  good  might  come;  but 
if  without  conscience  of  the  evil,  on  their  part,  then  it  must 
have  bespoken  their  participation  in  the  errors  of  the  time,  and 
their  consequent  unfitness  for  being  the  infallible  guides  and 
instructors  of  the  world. 

II.  In  rejecting,  however,  this  false  accommodation,  because 
it  trenches  on  the  matter  of  the  teaching  contained  in  the  New 
Testament,  we  say  nothing  against  such  an  accommodation  as 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION.  113 

has  respect  to  the  form  merely  of  the  doctrines  or  lessons 
taught,  which  might  be  perfectly  admissible,  and,  in  a  sense, 
even  necessary.  In  this  direction  there  was  abundant  room, 
in  New  as  well  as  Old  Testament  times,  for  a  true  accommo 
dation,  of  which  the  inspired  writers  wisely  availed  themselves, 
and  which  must  be  duly  taken  into  account  by  those  who 
would  fairly  interpret  their  writings.  The  limits  within  which 
such  accommodation  might  be  practised,  cannot  always,  per 
haps,  be  very  precisely  defined;  but,  in  the  general,  it  may 
be  stated  to  consist  in  the  falling  in  with  prevalent  modes  of 
thought  or  forms  of  conception,  so  as,  not  to  lend  countenance 
to  error,  but  to  serve  for  the  better  apprehension  of  the  truth. 
An  accommodation  of  this  sort  might  be  employed  under  two 
kinds — one  more  general,  the  other  more  specific ;  the  former 
grounded  in  characteristics  of  thought  common  to  mankind  at 
large,  the  latter  in  such  as  were  peculiar  to  the  age  and  coun 
try  in  which  the  sacred  penmen  lived. 

(1.)  To  the  first  or  more  general  class  of  accommodations 
are  to  be  referred  the  representations  given  of  Divine  and 
spiritual  things — things  which  lie  beyond  the  region  of  sense, 
and  are  not  directly  cognisable  by  any  faculties  we  possess. 
Such  things  can  only  be  made  known  to  us  by  an  accommo 
dation  from  the  visible  to  the  invisible,  from  the  known  to  the 
unknown ;  and  though,  in  such  cases,  the  form  is  necessarily 
imperfect,  and  conveys  an  inadequate  idea  of  the  reality,  it 
still  is  the  fittest  representation  of  the  idea,  the  nearest  to  the 
truth  of  things,  which  it  is  possible  for  us  in  present  circum 
stances  to  attain  to.  What  is  said,  for  example,  of  God's  an 
ger  towards  sinners — or  of  His  being  revealed  (through  Christ) 
in  flaming  fire  for  the  execution  of  judgment  upon  the  wicked 
— or  of  the  possibility  of  moving  Heaven  by  prayer  to  depart 
from  some  purpose  already  formed,  as  if  there  could  be  passion 
or  mutability  with  God — everything  of  this  sort  manifestly 
proceeds  upon  that  necessity,  which  is  inherent  in  our  natures, 
of  thinking  and  speaking  of  God  in  a  human  manner.  It  is 
impossible,  otherwise,  to  gain  definite  ideas  of  His  perfections 
and  government;  and  the  only  way  of  guarding  against  the 
abuse  of  such  representations,  is  by  the  employment  of  coun- 

10* 


114  TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION. 

ter-representations,  which  declare  God  to  be  in  Himself  essen 
tially  spiritual,  unchangeable,  and  incapable  of  being  carried 
away  by  the  feelings  and  impulses  of  finite  beings.  We  must, 
nevertheless,  think  of  Him,  and  conduct  ourselves  towards 
Him,  as  if  the  human  form  of  conceptions  respecting  Him 
conveyed  the  exact  truth; — He  will  act  toward  impenitent 
sinners  precisely  as  if  He  were  moved  to  anger  by  their  sins 
— His  appearance  for  judgment  against  them  will  be  as  if  He 
were  encompassed  with  devouring  fire — He  will  give  effect  to 
earnest  and  believing  prayer,  as  if  He  could  be  changed  by 
the  entreaties  of  His  people. 

Essentially  similar,  and  belonging  to  the  same  class,  are 
the  representations  given  of  Satan  and  his  agents.  Being  in 
themselves  simply  spirits,  without  bodily  parts,  the  language 
used  concerning  them  could  not  have  been  intelligible,  unless 
it  had  taken  its  hue  and  colour  from  human  forms  and  earthly 
relationships.  So  that  when  Satan  is  spoken  of  as  falling  from 
heaven,  as  being  chained  or  set  loose,  as  overcoming  the  saints 
or  being  bruised  under  their  feet — or  when  the  demons  gene 
rally  are  spoken  of  as  going  into  men,  as  driven  out  of  them, 
as  wandering  in  dry  and  desert  places,  and  such  like,  it  is 
open  for  consideration,  how  far  in  such  things  there  is  an  ac 
commodation  in  the  form  of  the  truth  exhibited  to  what  is 
cognizable  by  the  senses.  To  a  certain  extent  there  must  be 
an  accommodation — as  several  of  the  things  mentioned  are,  if 
literally  understood,  incompatible  with  the  nature  of  incorpo 
real  creatures,  and  some,  if  closely  pressed  in  the  literal  sense, 
would  be  found  inconsistent  with  others.  Due  allowance, 
therefore,  must  be  made  in  our  interpretations  for  the  sen 
suous  and  external  form  of  such  statements — not  to  the  ex 
tent,  certainly,  of  explaining  away  the  existence  of  those  evil 
spirits  (which  were  to  tamper  with  the  very  substance  of  the 
representations;)— but  yet  so  as  to  render  what  is  contained 
in  them  a  description  of  the  relative,  rather  than  of  the  abso 
lute  state  of  things — of  what  Satan  and  his  agents  are  or  do 
in  reference  to  human  interests,  and  as  contemplated  through 
a  human  medium.  Viewed  thus,  the  whole,  probably,  that 
can  be  understood,  for  example,  by  Satan  being  cast  down 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION.  115 

from  heaven,  is  losing  the  place  of  godlike  power  and  influ 
ence  he  had  reached — and  by  the  demons  wandering  in  dry 
and  desert  places,  their  being  bereft  for  a  season  of  that  ma 
lignant  satisfaction,  which  they  find  in  inflicting  evil  upon  the 
unhappy  subjects  of  their  sway — being  left,  like  persons  in  a 
desert,  without  refreshment  and  without  a  home.  It  is  need 
less,  at  present,  to  pursue  the  subject  into  further  details,  as 
from  what  has  been  said  the  principle  of  interpretation  may 
be  distinctly  understood. 

It  may  be  added,  however,  that  the  same  kind  of  accom 
modation,  which  appears  in  the  language  used  of  essentially 
Divine  and  spiritual  things,  is  also  required  in  many  descrip 
tions  of  the  still  undeveloped  future.  For,  although  that  fu 
ture  may  lie  within  the  region  of  sensible  and  earthly  things, 
yet,  if  the  world's  affairs  are  then  to  assume  an  aspect  essentially 
different  from  what  has  hitherto  belonged  to  them,  they  can 
only  be  distinctly  imaged  to  our  view  under  the  form  of  the 
present  or  the  past.  Partial,  of  course,  and  imperfect  such 
prophetical  representations  of  the  higher  things  to  come  must 
always  be,  but  they  are  the  only  ones  adapted  to  our  existing 
condition;  and  the  nearest  approach  to  the  truth,  the  best 
practical  conception  we  can  form,  of  what  is  hereafter  to  be 
realized,  is  by  the  help  of  representations  so  drawn  from  the 
theatre  of  actual  and  known  relations.  But  this  opens  too 
wide  a  field  of  thought  for  investigation  in  a  general  course 
of  hermeneutical  instruction;  it  is  enough  to  have  indicated 
the  fundamental  principle,  on  which  the  structure  of  prophecy 
is  framed,  and  on  which  its  interpretation  should  proceed.1 

(2.)  But  there  is  another  and  more  specific  class  of  accom 
modations,  which  cannot  thus  be  said  to  have  their  explana 
tion  in  the  necessary  limitations  of  the  human  mind,  in  its 
relation  to  the  objects  and  beings  of  a  higher  sphere,  but  which 
arose  out  of  the  modes  of  thought  and  expression  peculiar  to 
the  age  and  country  in  which  the  sacred  writers  lived.  Every 
age  and  country  has  certain  peculiarities  of  this  description ; 
and  as  the  inspired  penmen  were  not  prevented  by  the  Spirit, 

1  For  the  particular  investigation,  see  "Prophecy  viewed  in  respect  to  its 
Distinctive  Nature,"  etc. 


116  TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION. 

but  rather  led  thereby,  to  think  and  write  in  a  manner  agreea 
ble  to  the  usage  of  the  times,  such  peculiarities  must  be  taken 
into  account,  if  we  would  fully  understand  the  passages  where 
they  occur,  or  even  sometimes  avoid  serious  misconceptions 
of  their  meaning.  The  peculiarities  referred  to  are  often  no 
further  remarkable,  than  that  they  are  connected  with  what 
seems  a  singular  turn  of  expression — some  peculiarity  in  the 
mode  of  conception  embodying  itself  in  a  corresponding  pe 
culiarity  in  the  form  of  representation.  For  example,  both 
Hebrews  and  Greeks  were  in  the  habit  of  conceiving  certain 
states  of  mind  or  body,  indicated  by  some  verb  or  adjective, 
as  limited  or  particularized  by  a  related  noun  in  a  way  not 
natural  to  us — they  simply  placed  the  limiting  noun  in  the 
accusative,  without  any  thing  to  mark  the  nature  of  the  con 
nexion,  while  we  invariably  attach  it  to  the  verb  or  adjective 
by  a  preposition.  The  expressions  in  Greek,  xodaz  cox'j^,  xd/t- 
vzw  ro'jc  d<pdcd/Jtouc9  ra^  (ppevaz  fyacveiv,  6o.o'(warb^  TO  /j.sf£- 
60^,  and  such  like,  are  familiar  to  every  one  acquainted  with 
the  Greek  language;  arid  precisely  similar  are  many  phrases 
in  Hebrew — such  as  vS:n-riij  nSn,  he  was  diseased  the  feet  of 
him ;  B'K"!  T?^.'»  ne  will  crush  thee  the  head ;  ^??  iron  ?  ne  smites 
him  the  soul  or  life;  *Opx  'Sip,  my  voice  I  will  cry.  In*  all 
such  cases,  ive  find  it  necessary  to  use  some  preposition  before 
the  noun — with,  in  respect  to,  upon,  or  such  like — in  order  to 
bring  out  the  idea  we  wish  to  express.  This  arises  from  our 
conceiving  the  state  expressed  by  the  verb  or  adjective  as 
something  by  itself,  as  having  no  necessary  connexion  with 
any  particular  object;  and  so,  when  there  is  such  an  object  to 
be  specified,  we  must  connect  the  two  by  terms  that  will  fitly 
indicate  the  connexion.  The  Hebrews  and  Greeks  seem  to 
have  viewed  matters  more  concretely;  they  conceived  of  the 
state  indicated  as  inseparably  connected  with  some  individual 
person  or  thing,  and  thought  it  enough  to  name  in  the  loosest 
way  the  particular  part  or  property  affected.  They  were 
satisfied  with  the  accusative,  as  it  is  called,  of  nearer  defini 
tion — or  that  which  expresses  the  relation  of  the  particular 
to  the  general. 

It  arose  partly,  perhaps,  from  the  same  tendency  in  ancient 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION.  117 

times  to  a  more  concrete  mode  of  contemplation  than  prevails 
now,  that  the  Hebrews,  and  to  some  extent  also  the  Greeks, 
express  relations  in  a  more  inward  manner  than  we  do — they 
look  to  the  sphere  or  element  in  which  a  thing  is,  or  is  done ; 
while  we,  viewing  the  matter  more  ab  extra,  speak  of  the 
way  or  instrument  by  which  it  comes  to  be  so.  Thus  they 
said,  to  drink  in  a  cup,  while  we  say,  to  drink  from  it,  or  out 
of  it',  to  walk  in  the  counsel  of  any  one;  "in  murder  in  my 
bones,"  Ps.  xlii.  10,  as  if  my  bones  were  actually  undergoing 
murder;  Eccl.  vii.  14,  in  the  day  of  joy  be  thou  in  joy  (joyful) 
— 3103  rrn  — live  in  it  as  thy  proper  element.  Quite  similar 
in  the  New  Testament  are  such  passages  as  Apoc.  xiii.  10, 
"If  any  one  lv  imyaipq.  dxoxT^ys'i,"  literally,  kills  in  sword — 
identifies  himself,  in  a  manner,  with  the  sword,  so  as  to  make 
its  proper  action,  killing,  his  own — "he  must  be  killed  iv 
fj>a%alpqL:" — Rom.  ii.  12,  "As  many  as  have  sinned  ev  u6fj.co, 
shall  be  judged  $.v  vbp.0)"  the  Iv  denoting  the  status  of  the 
person  spoken  of,  in  respect  to  law — in  it,  as  possessing  the 
knowledge  of  its  requirements  and  its  penalties: — 1  Cor.  iv. 
21,  "What  will  ye?  Shall  I  come  to  you  &  pdpowy  ivdfdirrf' 
— in  a  rod,  as  if  a  rod  led  and  impelled  me,  or  love: — And 
to  mention  no  more,  2  Pet.  i.  5-7,  we  have  a  whole  series  of 
graces  coupled  with  lv,  Englished  in  the  authorized  version 
by  to,  "  add  to  your  faith  virtue,"  and  so  on ;  but  more  properly 
the  $.v  points  to  the  spiritual  state  of  the  person  addressed,  as 
standing  in  the  several  graces  mentioned;  and  the  exhorta 
tion  given  them  is,  that  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  these  they 
should  go  on  and  have  themselves  established  in  others  of  a 
like  kind.  For  us,  however,  it  is  more  natural  to  regard  faith 
and  the  other  graces  as  principles  or  dispositions  to  be  pos 
sessed  and  exercised;  and  in  such  a  manner,  that  the  cultiva 
tion  of  one  should  lead  on  to  the  possession  and  exercise  of 
others. 

These  may  seem  somewhat  minute  distinctions;  and  it  is 
only  in  a  limited  sense,  that  we  can  regard  the  expressions 
noticed  as  accommodations:  they  are  such,  only  in  so  far  as 
they'show  a  falling  in,  on  the  part  of  the  inspired  writers, 
with  a  somewhat  peculiar  mode  of  conception,  belonging  to 


118  TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION. 

their  age  and  country — and  one,  with  which  we  must  acquaint 
ourselves,  if  we  would  catch  the  precise  shades  of  thought  they 
meant  to  express.  But  we  have  only  to  follow  out  the  same 
line  of  reflection  a  little  further,  to  find  it  supplying  us  with 
some  very  natural  and  important  explanations.  The  same 
tendency  to  the  concrete,  as  contradistinguished  from  the 
isolating  and  analytic  spirit  of  modern  times,  discovers  itself 
occasionally  in  statements  and  forms  of  expression,  which,  if 
considered  from  a  modern  point  of  view,  must  appear  loose 
and  incorrect.  For  example,  in  the  genealogy  of  Matthew, 
ch.  i.,  Joram  is  said  to  have  begotten  Ozias,  or  Uzziah,  although 
in  reality  there  were  three  intervening  generations  between 
the  two.  And  in  the  Dissertation  on  the  Genealogies  of 
Matthew  and  Luke,  there  will  both  be  found  many  other 
instances  noticed  of  the  same  description  in  Old  Testament 
Scripture,  and  the  mistakes  also  pointed  out,  into  which  many 
have  been  led  by  overlooking  the  practice  adverted  to.  Mr. 
Layard,  in  his  work  on  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  613,  when 
noticing  an  inscription,  which  seems  to  designate  a  certain 
king  as  the  son  of  another,  though  he  was  only  a  successor, 
not  the  offspring  of  that  other,  remarks,  that  "the  term,  son 
of,  appears  to  have  been  used  throughout  the  East  in  those 
days,  as  it  still  is,  to  denote  connexion  generally,  either  by 
descent,  or  by  succession."  It  is  well,  that  an  existing  prac 
tice  in  the  East  can  thus  be  appealed  to  in  confirmation  of  a 
usage,  that  seems  so  manifestly  sanctioned  in  the  genealogies; 
— but  it  is  strange,  that  any  students  of  Scripture  should  have 
been  so  regardless  of  the  terms  employed  in  other  and  similar 
portions  of  its  records,  as  to  have  required  any  extraneous  or 
modern  proof  of  the  usage. 

It  was  only  to  advance  a  step  farther  in  the  same  line,  and 
view  another  class  of  related  objects  in  a  like  concrete  manner, 
if  successive  exemplifications  of  one  great  principle,  or  sub 
stantial  repetitions  of  one  line  of  procedure,  instead  of  being 
precisely  discriminated,  were  treated  as  in  a  manner  one.  The 
prominence  givea  in  the  mind  to  the  common  principle  or 
homogeneous  action,  appearing  in  the  several  cases,  had  the 
effect  of  practically  obliterating  the  individual  differences 


TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION.  119 

-which  separated  one  part  of  the  transactions  from  another, 
and  made  the  differences  seem  not  worth  noticing.  In  this 
way,  Abraham  and  his  posterity  are  often  identified,  in  regard 
to  the  principle  of  faith,  on  account  of  which  he  was  justified, — 
it  is  alike  Abraham's  faith,  whether  appearing  in  him  person 
ally,  or  in  them ; — and  so  in  regard  to  the  blessing  connected 
with  it — Abraham's  blessing  comes  upon  them,  and  the  in 
heritance  of  Canaan  is  indifferently  spoken  of  as  given  to  him 
or  to  them.  Many  similar  examples  occur  in  those  Scriptures, 
which  afford  scope  for  the  play  of  lively  feeling  or  a  warm  ima 
gination — those,  therefore,  more  particularly,  in  which  the 
facts  and  personages  of  history  are  worked  up  into  the  de 
lineations  of  prophecy,  or  are  considered  as  exponents  of  great 
and  vital  principles.  It  is  thus  we  would  explain  a  statement 
in  the  speech  of  Stephen  before  the  Jewish  council,  which  has 
often  been  treated  as  a  demonstrable  historical  error,  but 
which  has  only  to  be  viewed  as  an  accommodation  to  the  mode 
of  contemplation  now  referred  to,  in  order  to  its  being  satis 
factorily  explained.  The  statement  is  that  in  which  Stephen 
says,  U8o  Jacob  went  down  into  Egypt,  arid  died,  he,  and  our 
fathers,  and  were  carried  over  into  Sychem,  and  laid  in  the 
sepulchre  that  Abraham  bought  for  a  sum  of  money  of  the  sons 
of  Ernmor,  the  father  of  Sychem."  (Acts  vii.  15,  16.)  Now, 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  viewing  the  matter  critically  and 
historically,  there  are  inaccuracies  in  this  statement;  for  we 
know  from  the  records  of  Old  Testament  history,  that  Jacob's 
body  was  not  laid  in  a  sepulchre  at  Sychem,  but  in  the  cave 
of  Machpelah  at  Hebron  ; — we  know  also  that  the  field,  which 
was  bought  of  the  sons  of  Emmor,  or  the  children  of  Hamor 
(as  they  are  called  in  Gen.  xxxiii.  19,)  the  father  of  Sychem, 
was  bought,  not  by  Abraham,  but  by  Jacob.  It  would  ap 
pear,  therefore,  that  to  a  critical  eye  there  are  no  less  than 
two  distinct  blunders  here — and  blunders  so  palpable,  that  a 
mere  school-boy,  who  had  read  Old  Testament  Scripture,  might 
without  difficulty  detect  them.  But  this  very  circumstance, 
that  the  incongruities  are  so  palpable  and  easy  of  detection, 
must  surely  render  it  very  improbable,  that  they  could  have 
been  fallen  into  by  a  man  of  Stephen's  penetration  and  dis- 


120  TRUE  AND  FALSE  ACCOMMODATION. 

comment — to  say  nothing  of  his  supernatural  endowments  by 
the  Spirit.  There  must  be  some  other  explanation  of  the 
matter,  than  that  which  would  resolve  it  into  mere  ignorance 
or  forgetfulness  of  the  facts  of  the  case — the  rather  so,  as  it 
occurs  in  a  speech  remarkable  for  the  insight  it  displays  into 
the  connexion  and  bearing  of  Old  Testament  history.  And 
that  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the  principle  of  accommo 
dation,  considered  merely  as  determining  the  form  and  man 
ner  of  the  representation.  Stephen  here,  as  in  his  speech 
generally,  is  not  acting  the  part  of  a  simple  narrator  of  facts ; 
he  has  in  view  throughout  important  principles,  substantially 
the  very  same  principles,  which  were  then  struggling  for  victory 
in  the  cause  with  which  he  was  identified ;  and  it  is  only  as 
connected  with  these,  and  serving  to  throw  light  on  them,  that 
he  notices  and  groups  together  the  occurrences  of  the  past. 
In  this  part  of  his  statement,  where  he  is  speaking  of  the  godly 
fathers  of  the  nation,  he  is  silently  contrasting  their  faith  in 
God  with  the  unbelief  and  hardness  of  subsequent  generations, 
his  own  in  particular;  and  the  special  proof  of  it,  to  which  he 
points,  is  the  purchase  of  ground  from  the  Canaanites,  at  a 
time  when  it  seemed  little  likely  to  the  eye  of  sense  that  the 
land  should  ever  be  theirs,  and  destining  their  bodies  to  be 
deposited  in  the  ground  so  purchased,  as  a  pledge  of  the  ulti 
mate  realization  of  their  hopes.  As  the  faith  in  this  respect 
was  one,  and  the  way  in  which  it  showed  itself  the  same,  Ste 
phen  (after  the  manner  of  his  countrymen)  throws  all  together; 
— he  does  not  distinguish  between  what  was  done  by  Abraham, 
and  what  was  done  by  Jacob,  as  if  they  were  separate  and  in 
dependent  acts;  he  looks  at  the  matter  concretely,  and  as 
Abraham  originated  the  procedure  of  buying  ground  for  a 
sepulchre,  and  Jacob  merely  trod  in  his  footsteps,  so  the  whole 
is  identified  with  Abraham, — the  ground  at  Sychem  is  also 
contemplated  as  his  purchase,  in  which,  according  to  Jewish 
tradition,  the  patriarchal  heads  of  the  nation  were  brought 
from  Egypt  and  buried;  and  the  distinction  is  in  a  manner 
lost  sight  of  betwe2n  the  transactions  connected  with  Mamre, 
and  those  with  Sychem, — because  one  character  and  one 


ANALOGY  OF  THE  FAITH.  121 

bearing  belonged  to  them  in  the  light  contemplated  by  Ste 
phen.1 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  there  is  a  perfectly  legitimate 
application  of  the  principle  of  accommodation ;  and  one  that  it 
may  be  of  considerable  importance  rightly  to  understand  and 
employ,  for  the  proper  elucidation  and  defence  of  New  Testa 
ment  Scripture.  It  is  carefully  to  be  borne  in  mind,  however, 
that  the  accommodation  has  respect  merely  to  the  form  and 
manner  in  which  the  statements  are  made,  not  to  the  substance 
of  the  truth  therein  communicated; — its  whole  object  is  to 
render  the  truth  more  distinctly  comprehensible,  or  to  give  it 
greater  force  and  prominence  to  the  mind.  And  as  it  pro 
ceeds  upon  forms  of  thought  and  conception  prevalent,  it  may 
be,  only  in  the  times  and  places  where  the  inspired  writers 
lived,  or,  at  least,  more  markedly  prevalent  there  than  else 
where,  it  must  always  be  our  first  concern,  to  get  ourselves 
well  acquainted  with  the  peculiarities  themselves,  and  the  state 
of  mind  out  of  which  they  originated.  For  thus  alone  can  we 
come  to  perceive  in  what  respects  there  was  an  accommoda 
tion,  and  know  how  to  give  due  allowance  to  it,  without,  at  the 
same  time,  impairing  the  substance  of  the  truth  that  might  bo 
couched  under  it. 


SECTION  SIXTH. 

THE  RESPECT  DUE  IN  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA 
MENT  TO  THE  ANALOGY  OP  THE  FAITH,  OR  FROM  ONE  PART  OF 
SCRIPTURE  TO  ANOTHER;  AND  THE  FURTHER  RESPECT  TO  BE  HAD 
TO  THE  RELIGIONS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  WORLD,  THE  TRUE  AND  THE 
FALSE. 

FROM  what  concerns  the  form,  we  proceed  now  to  what 
rather  relates  to  the  substance  of  the  sacred  writings;  with  the 
view  of  considering  whether  this  may  not  itself  be  subject  to 

1  It  is  much  in  the  same  way,  and  on  substantially  the  same  principle, 
that  two  prophecies — the  utterance  of  quite  different  men — are  sometimes 
thrown  together,  and  treated  as  one.  See  the  remarks  on  Matthew  xxvii. 
9,  10. 

11 


122  RESPECT  TO  BE  HAD  TO  THE 

modifying  influences — whether  it  is  to  be  always  taken  in  an 
absolute,  and  not  also  sometimes  in  a  merely  relative  point  of 
view. 

I.  Here  our  first  line  of  inquiry  shall  be,  into  the  relation 
of  one  part  of  New  Testament  Scripture  to  another — whether 
any  respect,  or,  if  any,  what  respect,  should  be  had  in  our  in 
terpretations  to  what  is  called  the  analogy  or  rule  of  faith. 
The  expression,  the  analogy  of  faith,  is  derived  from  Horn.  xii. 
6,  where  the  subject  of  discourse  is  the  exercise  of  spiritual 
ministrations  or  gifts,  and  where,  in  regard  to  the  gift  of 
prophecy,  it  is  said,  that  they  who  possess  the  gift,  should 
employ  it  xara  rrp  avaAofiau  TT^  K'KJTZCO-,  according  to  the 
analogy  of  the  faith,  as  some  would  render  it; — and  when  so 
rendered,  it  becomes  very  nearly  synonymous  with  according 
to  the  rule  of  faith.  For  analogy  in  such  a  connexion  can 
only  be  understood  as  denoting  the  common  agreement,  the 
standard  xavcov,  or  rule,  which  results  from  a  comparison  of 
one  part  of  Scripture  with  another.  And  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  that  the  word  dvafofla  is  sometimes  so  used;  for  it  is 
denned,  by  the  old  lexicographer  Hesychius,  measure,  canon, 
rule.  Yet  the  sense,  which  is  thus  obtained,  is  not  suitable  to 
the  connexion  in  the  passage  before  us,  and  is  now  generally 
abandoned  by  commentators,  although  it  is  still  retained  by 
Hodge.  When  treating  of  persons,  who  do  not  merely  pretend 
to  possess,  but  who  are  actually  endowed  with,  the  gift  of  pro 
phecy,  an  exhortation  to  use  it  in  accordance  with  the  great 
principles  of  the  Christian  faith  seems  out  of  place ;  for  it  were 
really  no  gift  at  all,  unless  it  took  of  itself  this  divinely  pre 
scribed  course.  The  faith  here  meant  is  to  be  understood,  not 
objectively  as  a  comprehensive  term  for  the  truths  and  doctrines 
of  the  Christian  religion,  but  subjectively,  for  the  internal 
principle  of  spiritual  discernment  and  apprehension,  on  which 
the  soul's  recipiency  in  respect  to  prophetical  gifts,  and  fitness 
for  exercising  them,  depends.  According  to  the  measure  or 
proportion — such  i3  undoubtedly  the  usual  import  of  dvalofla 
— of  this  faith,  says  the  apostle,  let  each  one  prophesy,  who  is 
spiritually  endowed  for  that  work;  let  him  ply  his  function,  or 


ANALOGY  OF  THE  FAITH.  123 

give  forth  the  instructions  he  has  to  communicate,  agreeably 
to  the  light  and  strength  enjoyed  by  him — not  seeking  to  go 
beyond  it,  on  the  one  hand,  and  not  falling  short  of  it,  on  the 
other.  Understood  thus,  the  exhortation  comes  to  be  much 
of  the  same  import  as  that  of  Paul  to  Timothy,  to  "stir  up  the 
gift  that  was  in  him" — meaning,  that  he  should  not  allow  the 
spiritual  endowments  conferred  on  him  to  slumber,  nor  divert 
them  to  a  wrong  use,  but  should  endeavour  to  bring  them  into 
full  and  proper  exercise. 

Some  of  the  early  Fathers  make  mention  of  a  rule  of  faith 
(regula  fidei,)  to  which  all  teaching  in  the  Church  was  to  be 
conformed,  or,  if  contrary  to  it,  condemned.  By  this  was  ori 
ginally  meant,  no  specific  creed  or  set  form  of  words,  but 
merely  the  general  principles  of  the  faith,  of  which  various 
summaries  are  given  by  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  agreeing 
in  the  main,  but  by  no  means  altogether  the  same.  Augustine, 
in  his  Treatise  de  Doc.  Christiana  III.  2,  expressly  defines  it 
to  be  the  sense  or  doctrine,  which  is  gathered  from  the  plainer 
parts  of  Scripture.  Speaking  there  of  the  difficulties  which 
the  student  of  Scripture  sometimes  meets  with  in  his  efforts  to 
ascertain  the  meaning,  he  says,  Consulat  regulam  fidei,  quam 
de  Scripturarum  planioribus  locis  et  Ecclesige  auctoritate  per- 
cepit;  i.e.  Let  him  rule  the  sense  of  the  more  obscure  and 
difficult  parts  of  Scripture  by  such  as  are  of  plainer  import, 
and- the  common  faith  held  by  the  orthodox  Church.  And 
should  this  prove  insufficient,  then,  he  adds,  let  him  carefully 
examine  the  connexion,  and  endeavour  to  get  light  to  the  par 
ticular  text  from  what  goes  before  or  follows.  The  expression, 
however,  of  the  rule  of  faith  came  by-and-by  to  be  understood 
of  the  creeds  publicly  authorized  and  sanctioned  by  the  Church ; 
and  in  the  hands  of  Vincentius  Lirinensis  it  came  to  assume 
the  form  of  an  all-embracing  principle  of  conformity — in  the 
famous  maxim,  Quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ab  omnibus 
creditum  est.  By  thus  establishing  universality,  antiquity, 
and  general  consent  as  the  great  criterion  of  truth  and  duty, 
tradition  was  virtually  exalted  above  Scripture — and  the  maxim 
has  hence  passed  as  a  watchword  among  Roman  Catholic 
theologians,  and  their  High  Church  imitators.  In  this  sense 


124  RESPECT  TO  BE  HAD  TO  THE 

the  rule  is,  of  course,  rejected  by  all  sound  Protestant  writers. 
Yet  there  is  also  a  sense  in  which  it  has  been  accepted  by  them, 
and  has  commonly  had  a  place  assigned  it  in  the  Hermeneutics 
of  the  New  Testament.  Ernesti,  for  example,  thus  writes  of 
it  in  his  Institutes:  "Analogy  of  doctrine  or  of  faith,  which 
is  rarely  defined  with  sufficient  accuracy,  depends  not  upon 
the  system  received  by  any  sect  of  Christians,  as  unfair  and 
ignorant  men  falsely  assert;  for  in  that  case  the*  rule  would 
be  variable; — nor  on  the  mutual  relation  of  its  parts — just  as 
legal  analogy  does  not  consist  in  the  body  of  laws,  nor  in  the 
mutual  connexion  and  dependen.ee  of  single  laws;  nor  gram 
matical  analogy  in  the  words  themselves.  But  as  gram 
matical  analogy  is  the  law  and  form  of  language  established 
by  usage,  to  which  is  opposed  anomaly ,  that  is,  departure 
from  the  established  usage  and  forms  of  speech;  so  the  analogy 
of  doctrine  or  faith  rests  upon-  the  main  points  of  Christian 
doctrine  evidently  declared  in  Scripture,  and  thence  denomi 
nated  by  the  Latin  doctors,  the  Regula  Fidei.  To  these 
everything  is  to  be  referred,  so  that  no  interpretation  can  be 
received,  which  is  not  consistent  with  them.  Nor,  as  far  as 
relates  to  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  is  the  analogy  of 
Scripture  anything  different  from  the  analogy  of  doctrine." 
This  is  a  very  plain  and  reasonable  account  of  the  matter; 
although  one  may  justly  say,  with  Dr.  Terrot,  the  translator 
of  Ernesti,  that  the  expression  has  not  been  happily  chosen, 
and  that  it  were  better  to  say,  Scripture,  like  all  other  books, 
ought  to  be  interpreted  consistently.  When  the  analogy  or 
rule  of  faith  is  mentioned  as  a  standard  or  rule  of  interpreta 
tion,  it  naturally  suggests  something  apart  from  Scripture — 
some  sort  of  compend  or  exhibition  of  its  leading  principles; 
whereas  all  that  is  really  meant,  is,  that  one  part  of  Scripture 
should  not  be  isolated  and  explained  without  a  proper  regard 
being  had  to  the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  other  parts. 
This  is  a  consideration,  which  must  be  taken  into  account  ge 
nerally,  without  respect  to  any  peculiarity  in  the  nature  of 
the  writings  we  have  to  deal  with;  but  it  should  have  place 
more  especially  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture;  for  the 
Word  of  God  must  be  consistent  with  itself,  while  the  word  of 


ANALOGY  OF  THE  FAITH.  125 

man  may  not.  "  The  books  of  Scripture  were  not  handed 
down  to  us  by  chance  or  accident;  neither  are  we  to  regard 
them  only  as  a  manual  of  sayings  and  examples,  or  as  isolated 
relics  of  antiquity,  from  which  no  perfect  whole,  no  compre 
hensive  and  finished  plan,  can  be  educed;  but  as  a  matchless, 
regular  account  of  God's  dealings  with  man  through  every  ago 
of  the  world,  from  the  commencement  to  the  end  of  time,  even 
to  the  consummation  of  all  things.  They  indicate  together 
one  beautiful,  harmonious,  and  gloriously  connected  system. 
For,  though  each  scriptural  book  is  in  itself  something  entire, 
and  though  each  of  the  inspired  penmen  has  his  own  manner 
and  style  of  writing,  one  and  the  self-same  spirit  breathes 
through  all;  one  grand  idea  pervades  all."1 

Thus  understood,  the  principle  of  which  we  speak  is  not 
fairly  open  to  the  objection  urged  against  it  by  Dr.  Campbell 
in  his  4th  Prelim.  Dissertation.  He  represents  it  as  imply 
ing,  that  we  have  first  somehow  learned  the  scheme  of  truth 
revealed  in  Scripture,  and  that,  with  this  previously  arranged 
scheme  in  our  heads,  we  then  go  to  Scripture,  not  in  order  to 
learn  the  truths  it  contains,  but  in  order  to  find  something 
that  may  be  made  to  ratify  our  opinions.  This  is,  no  doubt, 
what  has  too  often  been  done;  and,  whenever  done,  ought  to 
be  strongly  repudiated  by  all  who  have  a  proper  reverence 
for  the  authority  of  Scripture.  But  in  its  fair  and  legitimate 
application  the  principle  has  respect  only  to  the  more  doubt 
ful  or  abrupt  parts  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  simply  requires, 
that  these  should  be  brought  into  comparison  with  the  other 
and  clearer  statements  contained  in  it;  so  that  no  erroneous 
or  partial  meaning  may  be  imposed  on  them,  and  amid  various 
possible  interpretations  such  a  one  may  not  be  adopted  as 
would  place  them  at  variance  with  the  fundamental  truths  and 
pervading  spirit  of  Scripture.  The  selection  of  one  or  two 
examples  will  serve  to  exhibit  more  distinctly  its  true  nature 
and  proper  application. 

In  Matt.  iv.  1  it  is  stated,  respecting  our  Lord,  that  "  He 

was  led  up"  of  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness,  to  be  tempted  of 

the  devil;"  while  in  James  i.  13,  the  general  principle  is  laid 

1  Life  and  Remains  of  Bengel,  p.  254. 

11* 


126  KESPECT  TO  BE  HAD  TO  THE 

down,  that  God  tempteth  no  man;  and  it  is  the  plain  import 
of  what  is  taught  in  Scripture  concerning  God,  that  being 
Himself  infinitely  wise  and  good,  He  cannot  take  a  course 
with  His  children  which  has  for  its  object  the  enticing  of  them 
to  sin.  This  general  doctrine,  therefore,  so  frequently  an 
nounced,  and  so  necessarily  flowing  from  the  character  of  God, 
must  so  far  be  allowed  to  qualify  the  statement  respecting  the 
design  of  our  Lord's  being  led  into  the  wilderness,  that  we 
dissociate  from  it  the  idea,  which  we  usually  couple  with  tempt 
ing — that  of  an  intention  to  draw  into  evil.  The  leading,  on 
the  Spirit's  part,  into  the  field  of  temptation,  was  for  the  pur 
pose  of  victory  over  sin,  not  of  subjection  to  its  power.  In 
the  course  of  that  temptation,  Satan  brought  into  remem 
brance  a  promise,  contained  in  Ps.  xci.,  expressing  in  the 
strongest  and  most  comprehensive  terms  the  charge,  which 
the  Lord  gives  to  the  angels  over  His  own  people,  and  the 
certainty  with  which,  in  consequence,  they  shall  be  kept  in 
all  their  ways.  But,  in  reply  to  the  use  made  of  this  promise 
by  the  tempter,  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  our  Lord  to  cast 
Himself  down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple,  He  placed, 
not  as  an  antagonistic,  but  as  a  restrictive  consideration,  the 
precept,  "Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God" — show 
ing  that  here,  as  in  respect  generally  to  the  promises  of  Scrip 
ture,  the  whole  is  to  be  understood  as  bounded  and  qualified 
by  the  plain  rules  of  duty — nothing  promised  is  ever  meant 
to  supersede  or  disannul  what  has  been  commanded.  The 
special  promise  given  to  the  apostle  Peter,  in  Matt.  xvi.  18, 
as  to  his  being  the  Rock  on  which  Christ  should  build  His 
Church,  is  to  be  dealt  with  in  a  similar  manner; — instead  of 
being  isolated,  as  is  done  by  Romanists,  and  the  meaning  of 
its  terms  pressed  to  the  uttermost,  as  if  the  subject  of  promise 
stood  in  no  sort  of  connexion  with  any  other  passages  of 
Scripture,  it  ought  to  be  viewed  in  connexion  with  similar  pro 
mises  and  statements  made  concerning  the  other  apostles,  ac 
cording  to  which  they  were  all  to  be,  in  an  instrumental  sense, 
foundation-stones  and  pillars,  (Matt.  xix.  29;  Gal.  H.  9;  Eph. 
ii.  20;  Rev.  xxi.  14;)  and  also  with  what  Peter  himself  wrote 
in  the  latter  period  of  his  earthly  labours,  in  which,  for  him- 


ANALOGY  OF  THE  FAITH.  127 

self,  and  for  all  others,  he  denounces  that  spiritual  lordship, 
which,  on  the  ground  of  the  original  promise,  has  been  attri 
buted  to  him,  (1  Pet.  v.  1 — 4,)  and  gives  to  Christ  frhe  whole 
and  undivided  glory  of  procuring  and  distributing  the  bless 
ings  of  salvation,  (ch.  i.  2,  3,  ii.  3— 6,- etc.)  Take  one  exam 
ple  more:  in  Prov.  xxv.  21,  22,  and  again  in  Rom.  xii.  20, 
kindness  instead  of  revenge  is  enjoined  toward  an  enemy — 
giving  him  food  when  he  is  hungry,  when  thirsty  giving  him 
water  to  drink — by  the  consideration,  "  for  in  so  doing  thou 
shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head."  Now  this,  if  taken 
simply  by  itself,  is  capable  of  a  two-fold  meaning;  it  may 
mean,  either  thou  shalt  by  these  acts  of  kindness  sorely  ag 
gravate  the  guilt  and  the  doom  of  thine  adversary, — or,  thou 
wilt  altogether  destroy  in  him  that  which  makes  him  an  ad 
versary — thy  kindness,  in  recompense  for  his  malice,  will  con 
sume  the  spirit  of  evil  that  works  in  him,  and  win  him  to  the 
position  of  a  friend.  If  the  clause  were  entirely  isolated, 
either  of  these  explanations  might  be  adopted.  But,  surely, 
when  we  consider  the  whole  tenor  of  the  gospel  of  Christ — 
when  we  think  even  of  what  goes  immediately  before,  of  the 
benignant  spirit  and  the  active  charities,  which  it  is  the  ob 
ject  of  the  apostle  to  enforce,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  doubt 
which  of  the  two  should  be  preferred.  Could  the  apostle,  as 
a  sequel  to  such  exhortations,  and  when,  seeking  to  have  the 
disciples  penetrated  by  a  full  sense  of  the  mercies  of  God, 
have  meant  to  ply  them  with  the  diabolical  motive  of  deepen 
ing  the  guilt  of  an  adversary,  and  rendering  his  doom  more 
intolerable?  No — we  instinctively  feel  this  could  not  possi 
bly  be ;  what  he  intended,  must  have  been  the  practising  upon 
him  of  that  noble  and  generous  revenge,  which  should  convert 
him  from  being  an  enemy  into  a  friend. 

These  illustrations  may  suffice  to  show,  in  what  manner, 
and  within  what  limits,  the  principle  of  analogy,  or,  as  it  had 
better  be  called,  the  principle  of  consistency,  in  the  interpre 
tation  of  Scripture,  may  be  applied.  It  undoubtedly  requires 
to  be  used  with  caution,  and  in  a  spirit  of  fairness  and  can 
dour — if  it  is  to  be  turned  to  any  valuable  account,  or  even 
not  abused  to  the  support  of  dangerous  error.  The  faith,  ac- 


RESPECT  TO  BE  HAD  TO  THE 

« 

cording  to  which  the  sense  of  particular  passages  is  determined, 
must  be  that  which  rests  upon  the  broad  import  of  some  of 
the  most  explicit  announcements  of  Scripture,  about  the  mean 
ing  of  which  there  can  be,  with  unbiassed  minds,  no  reasona 
ble  doubt.  And  in  so  far  as  we  must  decide  between  one  pas 
sage  and  another,  those  passages  should  always  be  allowed 
greatest  weight  in  fixing  the  general  principles  of  the  faith, 
in  which  the  subjects  belonging  to  it  are  not  incidentally  no 
ticed  merely,  but  formally  treated  of  and  discussed;  for,  in 
such  cases,  we  can  have  no  doubt  that  the  point  on  which  we 
seek  for  an  authoritative  deliverance  was  distinctly  in  the  eye 
of  the  writer. 

2.  The  principle  of  interpretation  now  considered  has  re 
spect  to  the  relation  that  one  part  of  New  Testament  Scrip 
ture  bears  to  another — the  more  difficult  and  obscure  to  the 
plainer  and  more  explicit.  But  there  is  another  relation  also 
that  must  be  taken  into  account — the  relation  in  which  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament  stand  to  those  of  the  Old.  It 
is  scarcely  possible  to  throw  this  into  a  specific  principle  of 
interpretation;  at  least  not  further  than  that  it  must  be  re 
membered,  we  have  in  the  New  Testament  a  higher,  but  very 
closely  related,  exhibition  of  truth  and  duty:  and  consequent 
ly  must  have  respect  alike  to  the  agreements  and  the  differ 
ences  subsisting  between  them.  This  relation,  of  necessity, 
exercised  a  very  marked  and  important  influence  upon  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament — upon  its  writings,  both  in 
respect  to  ideas,  and  the  forms  of  expression  in  which  the 
ideas  are  clothed.  It  is,  of  course,  necessary,  in  the  first  in 
stance,  that  a  correct  apprehension  be  formed  of  the  relation 
as  regards  the  ideas  involved  in  it,  the  ideas  common  to  both 
dispensations;  for  the  knowledge  of  the  ideas  bears  on  the 
foundation,  and  touches  the  ground  and  nature  of  every  par 
ticular  view  that  may  be  exhibited.  This,  however,  is  too 
wide  a  field  to  be  entered  on  particularly  here.  If  considered 
fully,  it  would  require  a  discussion  of  the  nature  and  princi 
ples  of  the  typical  connexion  between  the  law  and  the  gospel, 
arid  lead  to  investigations  fully  as  much  connected  with  the 
dogmatical  as  with  the  exegetical  departments  of  theology. 


KELIGION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  129 

So  far,  however,  the  relation  must  be  understood,  that  it  has 
to  do  as  well  with  the  agreements  as  with  the  differences  be 
tween  the  affairs  of  the  Old  and  those  of  the  New  Covenants. 
Indeed,  if  any  distinction  were  to  be  made  between  the  two, 
we  should  say,  that  the  agreements  ought  more  especially  to 
be  regarded,  because  they  lie  deeper,  and  concern  the  more 
essential  elements  in  the  two  dispensations;  while  the  differ 
ences  are  of  a  more  circumstantial  and  formal  nature.  From 
the  position  of  matters  at  the  commencement  of  the  New  dis 
pensation,  more  particularly  from  the  determination  on  the 
part  of  many  to  exalt  to  an  undue  place  the  temporary  and 
shadowy  things,  in  which  the  Old  dispensation  differed  from 
the  New,  it  became  necessary  for  the  inspired  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  to  bring  out  with  peculiar  prominence  the  dif 
ferences;  with  the  view  of  manifesting  the  superior  and  more 
perfect  nature  of  the  work  and  economy  of  Christ.  But  they 
scarcely  ever  do  this,  without,  at  the  same  time,  pointing  to 
the  essential  agreements  pervading  both  economies. 

Now,  it  is  in  accordance  with  this  twofold  nature  of  the  re 
lation  which  subsists  between  the  Old  and  the  New  in  God's 
dispensations,  that  the  language  of  New  Testament  Scripture, 
in  so  far  as  it  bears  respect  to  the  Old,  is  constructed,  and 
ought  to  be  interpreted.  In  the  great  majority  of  cases,  the 
precise  nature  of  the  reference  is  manifest;  we  can  see  at  a 
glance  whether  it  is  the  agreements  or  the  differences  that 
are  in -view.  For  example,  when  our  Lord  is  described  by 
the  Baptist  as  "  the  Larnb  of  God,  who  takes  away  the  sins 
of  the  world;"  or  when  the  apostle  Paul  says,  "Christ  our 
Passover  is  sacrificed  for  us,"  the  simplest  reader  will  per 
ceive,  that  there  is  an  agreement  or  correspondence  indicated 
between  the  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  one  great 
sacrifice  of  the  New — that  what  the  lamb  of  atonement,  espe 
cially  the  paschal  lamb,  was  to  the  Israelite,  as  regards  his 
interest  in  the  blessings  of  the  Old  Covenant,  that  Christ  now 
is  to  believers,  in  respect  to  the  greater  things  of  His  redemp 
tion.  No  one  can  doubt,  that  like  is  compared  to  like;  al 
though,  from  the  nature  of  the  objects  brought  into  compari 
son,  differences  of  an  important  kind  were  necessarily  implied. 


130  RESPECT  TO  BE  HAD  TO  THE 

• 

But,  in  explaining  the  passages,  we  would  naturally  lay  stress 
upon  the  resemblances  between  Christ  and  the  Old  Testament 
things  referred  to,  and  would  only  notice  subordinately  the 
points  which  distinguished  the  one  from  the  other.  In  like 
manner,  when,  in  Col.  ii.  11,  the  apostle  calls  baptism  "  the 
circumcision  of  Christ,"  and,  in  Phil.  iii.  3,  describes  believers 
as  "  the  circumcision  which  worship  God  in  spirit,"  the  mean 
ing  obviously  is,  that  the  essential  design  of  circumcision,  its 
real  spirit  and  object,  are  attained  in  those  who,  as  baptized 
believers,  have  entered  into  fellowship  with  Christ.  So  that 
it  is  the  correspondences,  which  must  again,  in  such  passages, 
be  brought  out;  it  is  these  which  must  be  rendered  prominent; 
however,  also,  occasion  may  be  taken  to  indicate  the  points, 
in  which  the  new  surpasses  the  old  circumcision. 

Again,  there  is  another  class  of  passages  in  which,  with 
equal  plainness,  our  attention  is  drawn  to  the  differences  sub 
sisting  between  the  New  and  the  Old: — as  when,  in  Heb.  viii. 
2,  Christ  is  called  "a  minister  of  the  true  tabernacle,  which 
the  Lord  pitched,  and  not  man;"  and,  in  chap.  x.  20,  where 
believers  are  said  to  enter  the  holiest  of  this  higher  tabernacle 
"by  a  new  and  living  way" — in  such  passages,  while  the  lan 
guage  bears  distinct  allusion  to  the  things  of  the  Old  Cove 
nant — expresses  the  New,  indeed,  under  the  form  and  aspect 
of  the  Old,  yet  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  vast  supe 
riority  of  the  New.  So  that,  in  such  cases,  it  is  the  diffe 
rences  we  are  naturally  led  to  think  of — these  now  become 
the  prominent  things,  and  the  resemblances  fall  into  the  back 
ground. 

But  there  are  other  passages,  in  which  it  is  less  easy  to  de 
cide — passages,  in  which  Old  Testament  language  is  employed, 
without  any  clear  indication  being  given,  whether  the  resem 
blances  or  the  differences  are  more  particularly  referred  to. 
For  example,  in  Heb.  x.  22,  the  apostle  exhorts  us  to  make  a 
fiducial  approach  to  the  throne  of  grace,  as  persons  "having 
their  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  their  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water."  Now,  what  is  here  meant  by  our 
bodies  being  washed?  Corporeal  ablutions  held  an  important 
place  under  the  Old  economy;  and  continually,  as  the  priests 


RELIGION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  131 

entered  the  sanctuary,  they  had  to  wash  their  hands  and  their 
feet  at  the  brazen  laver,  which  stood  in  the  outer  court.  But 
what  corresponds  to  this  in  Christian  times?  We  have  no 
external  sanctuary,  like  that  which  existed  in  the  Jewish  com 
monwealth,  and  consequently  no  corporeal  ablution  to  per 
form,  when  drawing  near  to  engage  in  the  worship  of  God. 
When,  therefore,  the  apostle  speaks  of  having  the  body  washed 
with  pure  water,  he  must  mean,  not  formally  the  same  thing 
as  of  old,  but  something  corresponding  to  it  in  nature — bear 
ing  the  same  relation  to  a  Christian,  that  the  other  did  to  a 
ceremonial  worship.  And  this  is  not  far  to  seek;  it  is  simply 
a  freedom  from  all  manifest  stains  and  blemishes  in  the  con 
duct.  It  was  precisely  these  stains  and  blemishes,  which  were 
imaged  by  outward  defilements  on  the  body  of  one  entering 
into  the  material  sanctuary: — his  washing  of  these  off  was  a 
symbol  of  the  separation,  which  then  also  had  to  be  main 
tained  by  sincere  and  accepted  worshippers,  from  all  overt  acts 
of  iniquity.  And  now  that  the  symbol  has  dropped,  as  no 
longer  needed — now  that  the  reality  alone  remains,  it  is  of 
this  reality  that  the  language  should  be  understood; — we  are 
to  regard  the  apostle  as  intimating,  that  along  with  a  purged 
conscience,  we  must  also  have  a  blameless  and  untarnished 
life — and  then,  with  the  two  together,  we  may  draw  near  with 
confidence  to  God. 

It  is,  therefore,  to  the  resemblances  that  this  expression  also 
points.  In  explaining  its  import,  we  should  endeavour  chiefly 
to  bring  out  the  correspondence,  that  subsisted  between  the 
ritual  service  of  the  Old,  and  the  spiritual  worship  of  the  New 
economy.  This,  obviously,  cannot  be  done  by  exhibiting 
merely  the  ritual,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  spiritual,  on  the 
other;  for  that  would  be  to  present  a  contrast  rather  than  a 
resemblance.  We  must  penetrate  into  the  symbolical  import 
of  the  ritual,  and  show,  that  in  the  outward  action,  in  which 
it  consisted,  there  lay  concealed  a  spiritual  element,  for  the 
sake  of  which  it  was  required  and  done.  So  that  it  is  not 
properly  a  contrast,  to  be  put  after  this  manner:  Such  an  out 
ward  thing  then,  arid  such  another  inward  now,  or  fleshly 
then,  and  spiritual  now;  but  a  similarity  with  a  difference: — 


132  RESPECT  TO  BE  HAD  TO  THE 

A  similarity,  since  under  both  covenants  alike  freedom  from 
open  impurities  is  required  of  God's  acceptable  worshippers — 
there  must  be  clean  hands,  or  a  blameless  life,  as  well  as  a 
pure  heart;  and  yet  a  difference,  since  from  the  clearer  reve 
lation  now  made  of  all  things  spiritual  and  divine,  and  the 
abolition  of  the  worldly  sanctuary,  the  symbolical  action  has 
gone  into  desuetude,  and  the  naked  reality  is  alone  brought 
into  view. 

Let  us  still  look  at  another  example,  and  we  shall  thus  more 
readily  perceive  the  justness  of  the  rule,  which  we  are  seeking 
to  deduce  for  guiding  our  interpretations  in  respect  to  such 
portions  of  New  Testament  Scripture.  In  Rom.  xii.  1,  we 
have  this  exhortation  given  by  the  apostle,  "I  beseech  you, 
by  the  mercies  of  God,  that  ye  present  your  bodies  a  living 
sacrifice — more  exactly,  a  sacrifice,  living, — holy,  acceptable 
to  God,  which  is  your  reasonable  service."  There  is  evi 
dently  a  reference  in  the  language  to  the  ancient  sacrificial 
worship;  and,  in  particular,  to  the  service  of  the  whole  burnt- 
offering,  in  which  at  certain  times  an  entire  animal  was  pre 
sented  upon  the  altar  to  God.  The  only  question  is,  what  is 
the  nature  of  the  reference?  Is  it  by  way  of  resemblance,  or 
by  way  of  contrast?  If  the  apostle  had  stopped  at  doaiav — 
if  he  had  said  merely,  "present  your  bodies  a  sacrifice,"  the 
matter  would  have  been  quite  plain;  it  would  have  been  ma 
nifest,  that  the  resemblance  only  was  indicated.  But  he  adds 
a  series  of  epithets,  characterizing  the  nature  of  the  service, 
which  Christians  are  called  to  render;  and  these  are  usually 
regarded  by  commentators  as  expressing  the  kind  of  service, 
not  positively  merely,  as  to  what  it  is  in  itself,  but  negatively 
also,  as  to  what  it  is  not,  viewed  in  reference  to  the  ancient 
ritual  of  Judaism.  The  ^0^1x^11  Xarpziav,  the  reasonable  ser 
vice,  at  the  close,  is  in  particular  held  to  indicate  this  idea, — 
as  in  the  following  comment  of  Ilaldane:  "This  evidently  re 
fers  to  the  distinction  between  the  service  of  the  Jews  by  sa 
crifices  and  ceremonial  worship,  and  the  service  of  Christians. 
Sacrificial  worship,  and  in  general  the  whole  ceremonial  ritual 
of  the  Jews,  were  not  worship  according  to  reason.  It  is,  in 
deed,  reasonable  to  worship  God  in  whatever  way  He  pre- 


RELIGION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  183 

scribes;  but  had  not  man  fallen,  he  would  not  have  been  re 
quired  to  worship  by  such  ceremonies  as  the  Jewish,  law  en 
joined.  Sacrificial  worship  is  not  in  itself  rational ;  and  was 
appointed  by  God,  not  for  its  own  excellence,  but  from  its 
adaptation  to  prefigure  the  good  things  to  come."  He  adds, 
and  certainly  not  without  reason,  that  many  commentators 
hesitated  about  adopting  this  explanation  of  the  Aofexijv,  un 
der  the  impression,  that  it  was  disrespectful  to  the  Divine  ap 
pointments  to  have  them  represented  as  not  rational.  But 
might  we  not,  on  the  same  ground  that  is  assigned  here  for 
the  non-rational  character  of  the  Old  Testament  worship,  also 
deny  rationality  to  the  New?  For  it,  too,  proceeds  on  a  basis 
different  from  the  natural  and  proper  one;  it  is  offered  on  the 
foundation  of  what  has  been  done  by  another  in  our  stead, 
while  the  original  and  strictly  proper  idea  of  sacrifice  is  that 
of  a  personal  surrender  and  dedication  to  God. 

We  may  feel  the  rather  inclined  to  doubt  the  correctness 
of  this  mode  of  explanation,  at  least  in  the  strongly  antithetic 
form  expressed  above,  when  we  look  to  the  other  epithets  ap 
plied  by  the  apostle  to  the  sacrifice  of  Christians — living,  holy, 
acceptable.  Living,  we  are  told,  stands  opposed  to  the  dead 
sacrifices  presented  under  the  law,  slain  victims;  but  what, 
then,  shall  be  put  in  contradistinction  to  the  holy  and  accept 
able?  Were  these  epithets  not  applicable  to  the  burnt-offer 
ings  of  the  Old  Testament?  On  the  contrary,  they  are  pre 
cisely  the  epithets  that  are  most  commonly  applied  to  them. 
The  flesh  of  the  sacrifices  generally,  as  of  everything  laid  upon 
the  altar,  was  declared  to  be  holy — in  token  of  which  the  vic 
tims  were  required  to  be  without  any  external  blemish;  while 
of  every  sacrifice  offered  according  to  the  law  the  set  phrase 
is,  that  it  was  an  offering  of  sweet  savour — in  other  words, 
acceptable  to  God.  These  two  expressions,  then,  beyond  a 
doubt,  indicate  a  resemblance;  and  it  would  surely  be  some 
what  strange — a  confusion  in  the  use  of  language  we  should 
not  have  expected  in  the  apostle — if  the  one  going  immedi 
ately  before  them,  and  the  othar  coming  immediately  after 
them,  should  have  pointed  to  &  formal  contrast.  Such  a  throw- 
12 


134  RESPECT  TO  BE  HAD  TO  THE 

ing  together  of  agreements  and  differences  in  one  continuous 
description,  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 

A  good  deal  of  this  confusion  imputed  to  the  statement  of 
the  apostle,  arises  from  the  inadequate  notions  that  prevail 
respecting  the  Old  Testament  sacrificial  worship — as  if  the 
outward  actions  had  formed  the  one  and  all  of  this,  and  there 
were  no  outgoings  of  spiritual  desire  and  affection  on  the  part 
of  the  worshipper  accompanying  them.  According  to  the  true 
idea,  the  outward  service  was  merely  the  symbolical  expres 
sion  of  what  was  thought  and  felt,  done  or  purposed  to  be 
done,  by  the  person  who  performed  it.  The  sacrifice  was  in 
the  closest  manner  identified  with  the  sacrificer.  Thus,  in  the 
case  of  the  burnt-offering,  which  is  here  more  particularly  re. 
ferred  to,  the  occasion  of  presenting  it  usually  was,  when  an 
individual  had  experienced  some  great  mercy,  or  felt  upon  his 
soul  a  special  call  to  devoted  gratitude  and  love;  and  his  feel 
ings  in  this  respect  were  embodied  in  the  offering — he  ex 
pressed  thereby  his  personal  surrender  to  God,  and  the  dedi 
cation  of  all  he  had  to  the  Divine  service  and  glory.  With 
out  this  grateful  feeling  and  purpose  of  devotedncss  on  the 
part  of  the  offerer,  the  offering  would  have  been  simply  a  piece 
of  hypocrisy — a  sign  without  any  thing  signified  thereby. 
The  proper  connexion  between  the  external  and  the  internal 
was  beautifully  brought  out  by  David  in  the  fifty-first  Psalm, 
when,  after  having  expressed  his  deep  contrition  for  past  sin, 
and  renewed  the  dedication  of  himself  to  God,  he  prays  for 
fresh  tokens  of  the  Lord's  favour,  that  as  the  natural  result  of 
what  was  to  be  imparted  on  the  one  hand,  and  felt  on  the 
other,  the  Lord  might  receive  and  be  pleased  with  sacrifices 
of  righteousness,  with  the  whole  burnt-offerings  that  should 
be  laid  upon  His  altar.  In  offerings  so  drawn  forth,  and  so 
presented,  would  there  be  no  life?  Could  the  service  with 
any  propriety  be  designated  as  a  dead  one?  Assuredly  not; 
the  soul  of  the  offerer  was  itself  on  .fire  with  love  and  grati 
tude  to  God,  and  a  spirit  of  life  animated  its  movements,  not 
the  less  that  it  had  to  express  itself  by  means  of  slain  victims 
laid  and  consumed  upon  the  altar. 

We  entertain  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  here  also  the  direct 


RELIGION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  135 

and  prominent  thing  in  the  apostle's  description  is  a  resem 
blance,  and  not  a  contrast.     His  object  is,  to  show  how  those, 
who  are  partakers  of  the  rich  grace  and  mercy  of  God  under 
the  Gospel,  may  and  should  exhibit  a  substantial  agreement 
with  the  service  of  the  burnt-offering,  which  was  wont  to  be 
rendered  by  such  as  had  received  peculiar  tokens  of  the  Lord's 
goodness.     They  should  present  to  God  their  bodies — i.  e.  the 
active  powers  and  energies  of  their  nature  (for  it  is  through 
the  body  that  these  come  into  operation) — present  these  as  a 
sacrifice,  living,  holy,  acceptable — a  real  dedication,  instinct 
with  life  and  purity,  and  on  that  account  well-pleasing  to  God. 
On  the  same  account  also  a  Xofi^ij  larpsla,  a  reasonable  ser 
vice — not,  however,  in  the  sense  of  rational,  as  opposed  to  a 
former  tr-rational  service ;  but  in  the  sense  of  spiritual, — a 
reasonable  or  spiritual  service,  in  which  the  soul  and  conscience 
are  exercised,  and  hence  opposed  to  what  is  simply  crajfjLaTiXTJ, 
corporeal  or  outward.     In  no  part  of  the  description  is  there 
properly  a  contrast  marked  between  the  Christian  and  the 
Jewish  service;   for,  in  the  Jewish  also,  when  rightly  per 
formed,  there  were  the  same  spiritual  elements,  as   in  the 
Christian;  there  too  the  soul  and  conscience  were  engaged; 
the  service  was  one  of  life  and  holiness,  on  the  part  of  the 
•worshipper,  and  on  the  part  of  God  crowned  with  acceptance. 
Still,  no  doubt,  a  difference  is  implied,  though  not  distinctly 
and  formally  expressed ; — it  is  implied  in  the  very  prominence 
which  is  given  to  the  spiritual  elements  of  the  service  re 
quired,  presented  apart  from  any  external  accompaniments  or 
outward  rites.     For  there  being  so  much  of  what  was  outward 
in  the  Old  Testament  service,  it  naturally  tended  to  take  off 
the  mind  to  some  extent  from  the  more  inward  and  vital  part; 
the  mind  could,  and  doubtless  too  often  did,  view  the  sacrifice 
as  something  apart  from  itself — a  thing  done  for  one,  rather 
than  by  him  and  with  him: — While  now,  the  temptation  to  a 
lifeless  externality  is  in  great  measure  removed,  the  service 
is  of  a  strictly  personal  and  spiritual  nature,  springing  from 
the  soul's  proper  consciousness  of  grace  and  blessing,  and  ap 
pearing  in  the  willing  obedience  of  the  members  of  the  body, 
as  instruments  of  righteousness  unto  God. 


130  RESPECT  TO  BE  HAD  TO  THE 

Now,  from  these  examples  and  illustrations  there  is  plainly 
deducible  a  twofold  rule  of  interpretation  in  regard  to  those 
portions  of  the  New  Testament,  which  represent  spiritual 
things  in  language  derived  from  the  relations  and  ritual  of  the 
Old.  The  rule  is,  that  in  those  passages,  which  distinctly  and 
formally  exhibit  the  difference  between  New  and  Old  Testa 
ment  things,  it  is  this  difference,  which  ought  to  be  rendered 
prominent  in  our  explanation,  yet  not  without  also  pointing 
attention  to  the  fundamental  agreement,  which  lies  under 
neath  the  superficial  diversity; — while,  on  the  other  hand,  in 
those  passages,  which  simply  present  Christian  things  under 
the  form  and  aspect  of  those  that  belonged  to  the  Old  Covenant, 
'it  is  the  correspondence  or  agreement  that  should  be  mainlij 
dwelt  upon.  The  Old  should,  in  that  case,  be  exhibited  as  a 
lively  image  or  palpable  representation  of  the  New — though 
a  representation  in  an  inferior  line  of  things,  and  with  com 
paratively  inadequate  results.  In  the  former  case,  our  object 
should  be  to  unfold  a  marked  and  obvious  difference  with  an 
underlying  substantial  agreement;  in  the  other,  to  unfold  a 
substantial  agreement,  though  accompanied  with  formal  and 
ostensible  differences — such  as  necessarily  pervaded  the  rela 
tions  of  an  inferior  and  preparatory,  to  an  ultimate  and  per 
manent  state  of  things. 

3.  If  now  we  pass,  for  a  moment,  from  the  true,  to  the 
many  false  religions  of  the  ancient  world,  from  Judaism  to 
the  endless  forms  of  heathenism,  we  have  to  mark  in  Christi 
anity  toward  them  a  relation  of  an  essentially  different  kind — 
one  simply  of  an  antagonistic  nature.  The  heathen  religions 
of  antiquity,  therefore,  had  no  direct  or  positive  influence  in 
moulding  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  and  imparting 
peculiar  shades  of  meaning  to  its  expressions.  Yet  the  sub 
ject  is  not  to  be  passed  altogether  unnoticed.  For,  though 
the  respect  had  to  heathen  modes  of  thought  and  forms  of 
expression  is  chiefly  of  a  negative  kind,  yet  even  that  is  in 
structive  ;  since  it  shows  in  what  a  different  region  the  Chris 
tian  religion  moved,  and  what  different  elements  it  embraced 
from  those,  out  of  which  heathenism  was  constructed.  Amid 
the  freedom,  with  which  Christianity  proceeded  to  diffuse 


RELIGIONS  OF  HEATHENISM.  137 

itself  in  the  world,  and  its  adaptation  to  the  modes  of  thought 
and  forms  of  expression  in  current  use,  it  still  manifested  a 
careful  reserve  in  respect  to  all  that  savoured  of  heathenism ; 
it  abstained  from  the  use  of  such  terms  as  had  become  asso 
ciated  with  the  false  worship,  or  impregnated  with  the  false 
notions,  of  the  pagan  world. 

For  example,  in  so  far  as  the  language  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  bears  respect  to  sacrificial  usages,  it  borrows  the  terms 
it  employs  from  the  Old  Testament,  or  makes  use  only  of  such 
as  are  common  to  the  Septuagint  and  the  writings  of  Hellenic 
authors.  It  refrains  from  employing  such  expressions  as, 
though  of  similar  import,  had  been  linked  to  usages,  which 
rendered  them  suggestive  of  the  pollutions  of  idolatry.  Of 
this  description  are  rtspcxdOapfia  and  itspi^fw^  which  both 
bear,  in  the  old  lexicographers,  the  signification  of  ransom  or 
sacrifice — the  equivalents  given  are  avriXorpov,  dvr^y^ov. 
The  Septuagint  also,  at  Prov.  xxi.  18,  has  Trspixddap/jta  daccuou 
dvojuoz,  the  wicked  is  a  ransom  for  the  righteous.  But  as 
the  words  acquired  this  sense  from  the  horrid  custom  of  sacri 
ficing  criminals  and  worthless  persons  to  make  expiation  for 
the  state  in  times  of  public  calamity,  they  are  never  used  in  the 
New  Testament  with  reference  to  religious  worship.  The  cus 
tom  prevailed  especially  at  Athens,  where  persons  of  a  worth 
less  caste  were  regularly  kept  against  the  occurrence  of  any 
plague  or  public  calamity,  and  then  thrown  into  the  sea,  in 
the  belief  that  they  should  wipe  off  the  guilt  of  the  nation. 
Such  persons  were  called  xaQdpuotTO,  7Tspf(/njfjtara^  and  other 
epithets  of  a  like  import.  The  terms  are  used  only  once  in 
the  New  Testament:  it  is  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  when  speaking, 
in  1  Cor.  iv.  13,  of  the  indignities  he  had  received;  but  it  is 
in  the  original  sense  of  sweepings,  offscourings,  or  filth,  the 
vilest  portions  of  society. 

The  common  term  for  the  altars  on  which  the  heathens 
offered  their  victims,  might  have  been  thought  less  objectiona 
ble  for  Christian  uses.  This  term  is  PW/JLOZ;  yet  it  occurs 
only  once  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament;  and  on  that 
solitary  occasion  it  is  employed,  not  of  a  Jewish  altar,  or  any 
thing  corresponding  to  it  in  Christian  times,  but  of  the  heathen 

12* 


138  EESPECT  TO  BE  HAD  TO  THE 

altar,  with  its  inscription  to  the  Unknown  God,  which  Paul 
found  at  Athens.  The  term  uniformly  employed  in  the  New 
Testament,  whether  in  a  literal  or  a  figurative  sense,  is  duat- 
affTijftioy: — an  evidence  of  the  care  with  which  the  sacred 
writers  sought  to  keep  the  true  religion  at  a  distance  from  all 
contact,  even  in  name,  with  idolatry. 

In  the  use  also  of  oal/jitoy,  and  its  compounds,  we  see  a 
similar  instance  of  the  wisdom  and  the  propriety  with  which 
the  speech  of  the  sacred  writers  were  guided.  The  word  had 
become  thoroughly  inwoven  with  the  ideas  and  the  worship 
of  heathendom ;  and  as  the  evil,  as  well  as  the  good — had,  and 
malignant,  not  less  than  gracious  and  benign  divinities,  were 
embraced  in  the  religions  of  Polytheism,  so  the  word  oalfjtcov 
extended  equally  to  both.  It  was  in  that  respect  a  word  of 
indifferent  meaning.  The  whole  religion  of  the  Greeks  and 
the  llomans  might  be  called,  and,  indeed,  was  familiarly  called, 
demon-worship,  d&ffedatfjtovia.  It  could  not,  therefore,  be 
counted  a  reproach,  it  might  rather  be  esteemed  an  honour 
for  any  one  to  be  spoken  of  as  0£<r0?o«.'/«oy£0T£/voc ;  it  simply 
marked  him  out  as  peculiarly  given  to  the  worship  of  the  gods. 
And  when  Paul,  in  the  Areopagus,  applied  that  epithet,  at  the 
commencement  of  his  speech,  to  the  men  of  Athens,  inferring 
their  title  to  it  from  what  he  had  observed  of  their  altars, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  meant  to  indicate  nothing  that 
should  prove  offensive  to  them.  He  merely  intended  to  ex 
press  the  fact,  that  they  were,  in  their  own  sense  of  the  mat 
ter,  a  very  religious  people.  And  it  is  certainly  a  somewhat 
unhappy  turn  that  is  given  to  this,  the  opening  part  of  the 
apostle's  address,  in  the  authorized  version,  when  he  is  made 
to  say,  that  he  perceived  "  they  were  in  all  things  too  super 
stitious."  Had  such  been  the  native  import  of  his  language, 
the  apostle  would  have  been  guilty  of  the  misdemeanor  of 
creating  a  prejudice  against  himself  at  the  outset — a  fault, 
we  may  be  sure,  he  did  not  commit  at  any  time,  and  least  of 
all  in  that  which  is,  artistically  considered,  the  most  perfect  of 
all  his  recorded  discourses.  There  is  another  instance  of  a  like 
use  of  the  word — though  in  this  case  really  misapplied — in  Acts 
xxv.  19,  where  Festus  says  of  the  case  of  Paul  to  Agrippa, 


RELIGIONS  OF  HEATHENISM.  139 


that  it  touched  upon  questions  xspt  rr 
it  should  have  been  rendered,  "  concerning  their  own  religion" 
to  give  the  fair  impression  of  what  Festus  actually  meant; 
since,  speaking  as  Festus  did  to  Agrippa,  a  professed  Jew, 
he  never  could  have  intended  to  stigmatize  the  worship  which 
was  paid  by  the  king  and  his  countrymen  as  a  superstition, 
in  our  sense  of  the  term.  It  was,  however,  a  wrong  term  to 
apply  to  the  religion  of  a  Jew,  and  in  making  use  of  it  Festus 
spoke  from  a  merely  heathen  point  of  view.  The  Jewish  re 
ligion  was  a  6soff$fizla,  a  reverential  fear  and  worship  of  God, 
but  not  a  deeffefiaefjtQvla,  a  religious  homage  to  the  divinities. 
In  the  Jewish  sense,  demon-worship  was  devil-worship  —  abomi 
nable  idolatry.  And  hence  ocu/w^ia  was  the  common  term. 
employed  to  designate  the  malignant  powers,  that  so  often 
held  possession  of  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men  at  the  Gospel 
era.  Hence  also  the  term  eb&upovia,  which  so  frequently 
occurs  in  heathen  authors  to  express  human  happiness  and 
prosperity,  is  never  —  because  it  indicates  prosperity  as  the 
gift  of  the  divinities  —  similarly  employed  in  the  New  Testa 
ment.  Not  even  once  is  it  used  there  to  express,  in  any  way, 
the  blessedness  enjoyed  by  God's  people. 

These  examples  may  suffice,  as  the  subject  they  are  brought 
forward  to  illustrate  is  rather  negative  in  its  bearing  on  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  than  of  a  positive  description. 
They  are  signs,  impressed  upon  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  that  the  religion  of  the  Gospel  has  no  proper  af 
finity  to  that  of  heathenism,  and  convey  a  silent  .protest 
against  all  pollutions  of  idolatry. 


SECTION  SEVENTH. 

THE  RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW  IN  GOD'S  DISPENSA 
TIONS  MORE  EXACTLY  DEFINED,  WITH  THE  VIEW  OF  PRE 
VENTING  MISTAKEN  OR  PARTIAL  INTERPRETATIONS  OF  SUCH 
PORTIONS  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE  AS  BEAR  ON  IT. 

To  lay  more  securely  the  ground  of  some  of  the  directions 
given  in  the  preceding  section,  and  to  provide,  so  far  as  can 


140         RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW 

be  done  within  a  small  compass,  a  clue  to  the  right  path  in 
the  treatment  of  those  passages,  which  bear  upon  the  mutual 
relation  between  Christianity  and  Judaism,  it  seems  advisable, 
before  entering  on  a  fresh  topic,  to  devote  a  little  space  to  the 
further  consideration  of  these  relations.  ^Ye  do  this  more 
especially  for  the  purpose  of  guarding  against  a  twofold  error, 
which  is  constantly  reappearing,  in  the  one  or  the  other  of 
its  aspects,  with  those  who  have  not  attained  to  accurate  views 
of  the  connexion  between  the  Old  and  the  New  in  God's  dis 
pensations: — the  error  of  either  ascribing  too  much  of  the 
carnal  element  to  Judaism,  or  of  imposing  too  much  of  the 
Judaistic  on  Christianity.  These  are  the  two  opposite  ex 
tremes,  into  which  certain  diverse  tendencies  in  Christianity 
are  ever  apt  to  run.  They  both  began  at  an  early  period  to 
develop  themselves.  The  Judaizing  tendency  naturally  ap 
peared  first,  as  it  was  out  of  Judaism  that  Christianity  sprung; 
and  in  making  the  transition  from  the  one  to  the  other,  many 
found  it  difficult  to  realize  the  extent  of  the  change  which  the 
work  of  Christ  had  introduced — they  clung  to  what  was  tem 
porary  in  the  Old,  even  after  it  had  been  supplanted  by  some 
thing  higher  and  better;  like  persons,  according  to  the  simili 
tude  of  our  Lord,  who  have  been  accustomed  to  old  wine,  and 
cannot  straightway  relish  new — although  in  this  'case  the  new 
was  the  better.  It  was  providential,  that  this  Judaizing  ten 
dency  did  appear  so  early — at  Jerusalem,  at  Antioch,  in  the 
churches  of  Galatia,  and  elsewhere — as  it  obliged  the  apostles 
at  the  very  first  to  meet  it.  In  various  parts  of  the  New 
Testament,  we  have  their  formal  deliverance  on  the  subject, 
arid  their  condemnation  of  the  error  which  it  involved.  The 
Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  to  the  Colossians,  and  to  the  He 
brews  are,  in  this  point  of  view,  especially  important;  as  they 
show  conclusively,  that  the  external  forms  of  the  ancient 
worship,  its  visible  temple,  Aaronic  priesthood,  fleshly  sacri 
fices,  stated  festivals,  and  corporeal  ablutions,  were  no  longer 
binding  on  the  conscience,  and  naturally  led,  if  perpetuated, 
to  carnalize  the  Gospel.  It  might  have  been  thought,  that 
these  apostolic  efforts  and  explicit  deliverances  would  have 
been  sufficient  to  check  the  evil,  and  prevent  its  recurrence 


MORE  EXACTLY  DEFINED.  141 

in  the  Christian  Church.  But  this  was  far  from  being  the 
case.  With  some  non-essential  modifications,  the  old  error 
reappeared,  bringing  in  a  train  of  forms  and  ceremonies,  pur 
gations  and  sacrifices,  feasts  and  solemnities,  which  differed 
only  in  name  from  those  of  the  Old  Economy;  and  a  Chris 
tian  priesthood  established  itself  as  an  essential  part  of  the 
Church's  constitution,  of  which  the  most  characteristic  feature 
was,  that  it  should  be  able  to  trace  up  by  successive  links  to 
Christ  its  hereditary  power  and  authority,  precisely  as  the 
ancient  priesthood  had  to  show  their  genealogical  descent 
from  the  loins  of  Aaron.  And  the  result  has  been,  that,  not 
withstanding  the  strong  and  repeated  protest  lodged  in  New 
Testament  Scripture  against  such  institutions  and  practices, 
as  at  variance  with  the  genius  of  the  Gospel,  in  what  once 
formed  nearly  the  whole,  and  what  still  forms  the  largest  part 
of  Christendom,  sacred  times  and  seasons,  altars  and  sacri 
fices,  external  purifications  and  an  official  priesthood,  have 
their  recognised  place  now,  much  as  in  ancient  Israel.  To 
such  a  mournful  extent  has  Christianity  been  Judaized. 

Exactly  the  opposite  tendency,  however,  began  also  in  early 
times  to  discover  itself,  and  still  continues  to  do  so,  though 
it  has  not  proved  nearly  so  powerful  or  so  general  as  the 
other.  The  Gnostic  spirit,  which  was  just  beginning  to  make 
its  appearance  in  the  Christian  Church  at  the  close  of  the 
apostolic  period,  was  the  first  representative  of  this  extreme. 
In  its  self-elated  and  ethereal  flights,  Gnosticism  sought  to 
soar  above  Christianity — to  become  spiritual  above  its  Spiritu 
ality ;  and  to  raise  at  least  the  loftier  and  more  contemplative 
believers  of  the  Gospel  into  a  kind  of  Divine-like  superiority 
to  every  thing  outward  and  material.  In  this  vain  attempt, 
however,  it  only  corrupted  Christianity,  by  disparaging  or 
denying  the  great  historical  facts  on  which  it  is  based,  and 
entering  into  profitless  speculationsrespecting  heavenly  things. 
Along  with  this  tendency,  and  as  a  kind  of  natural  corollary 
to  it,  it  sought  to  break  the  chain  between  Christianity-end 
Judaism — holding  the  former  to  be  indeed  of  God,  but  not  so 
the  latter,  on  account  of  the  fleshly  ordinances  and  material 
accompaniments  with  which  it  was  connected ;  it  was,  therefore, 


142  RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW 

assigned  to  the  agency  of  an  evil,  or,  at  least,  inferior  spirit. 
In  this  anti-scriptural  form,  Gnosticism  was,  of  course,  re 
pelled  bj  the  Church;  its  special  views  and  conclusions  were 
universally  reprobated  by  believers.  But  the  spirit  of  Gnos 
ticism  crept  in  through  many  avenues  into  the  Church;  and 
in  the  case  of  some  of  the  fathers — more  especially  Clement 
of  Alexandria  and  Origen — it  led  them  to  draw  too  broadly 
the  distinction  between  Christianity  and  Judaism,  and  to  seek 
the  instruction  couched  in  the  ordinances  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  not  in  their  immediate  design  or  symbolical  import,  but 
in  an  allegorical  interpretation  of  an  entirely  fanciful  and 
arbitrary  nature.  The  natural  inference  from  their  mode  of 
treating  the  Old  Testament  ritual  and  worship  was,  that,  con 
sidered  by  itself,  in  its  obvious  and  historical  reality,  it  was 
too  carnal  to  have  much  in  common  with  Christianity.  Now, 
of  course,  the  relations  of  those  times  no  longer  exist;  the 
leaven,  which  then  wrought  with  insidious  and  corrupting  in 
fluence,  can  scarcely  be  said  to  work  after  the  same  fashion 
that  it  did  then.  And  yet  there  have  been,  and  there  still 
are,  certain  sections  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  particular 
individuals  in  almost  every  section,  in  whom  the  tendency  to 
over-spiritualize  (if  we  may  so  express  it)  in  Christianity,  and, 
as  a  natural  consequence,  to  carnalize  in  Judaism,  does  not 
fail  in  some  way  to  manifest  itself. 

Writers  belonging  to  the  Baptist  communion  are  under 
some  temptation  to  give  way  to  this  tendency,  and  not  unfre- 
quently  do  so.  Take  as  an  example  the  following  passage, 
in  a  commentary  by  a  late  respectable  member  of  that  body: 
" Israel  was  a  stiff-necked  and  rebellious  people;  their  law 
was  written  on  tables  of  stone,  and  enforced  by  temporal 
sanctions;  he  that  despised  Moses'  law  died  without  mercy. 
But  all  Christ's  disciples  are  taught  of  God;  they  are  the  cir 
cumcision  of  Christ;  they  worship  God  in  the  Spirit;  His  law 
is  written  on  the  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart."  1  If  there  is  any 
propriety  in  this  contrast,  it  must  be,  that  Israel,  as  such, 
were  a  carnal  arid  ungodly  people,  yet  were  not  the  less  en 
titled  to  God's  ordinances,  nay,  these  ordinances  were  just  for 
i  Haldane  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  pp.  113,  103. 


MORE  EXACTLY  DEFINED.  143 

such  a  people;  whereas  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament, 
as  well  in  respect  to  its  people  as  its  ordinances,  is  strictly 
spiritual  and  holy.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  in  regard  to 
the  Israelites,  as  the  author  distinctly  states  (p.  193,)  is,  that 
their  privileges  were  all  carnal,  that  the  relation  in  which  they 
stood  to  God  was  carnal,  and  all  properly  growing  out  of  it 
fleshly  and  temporal ;  and  that  the  covenant,  under  which  they 
were  placed,  had  attained  its  object,  if  only  it  preserved  a 
worshipping  people  visibly  separated  from  the  idolatrous  Gen 
tiles.  In  like  manner,  another  writer,  belonging  to  the  same 
communion,1  says  of  circumcision  (and,  of  course,  he  might 
equally  have  said  it  of  any  other  Jewish  ordinance,)  that  it 
was  "quite  irrespective  of  personal  character,  conduct,  or 
faith,"  that  the  covenant  of  which  it  was  the  sign  "included 
solely  temporal  blessings;"  and  that  "the  rite  was  instituted 
to  distinguish  the  Jews  from  the  other  nations,  and  to  show 
their  title  to  the  land  of  Canaan:" — all  simply  outward  and 
carnal.  Another  writer  still — and  one  belonging  to  an  en 
tirely  different  school,  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  England — 
in  a  late  work,  gives  forth  substantially  the  same  views  re 
specting  the  people  and  ordinances  of  Israel;  does  so,  too,  in 
the  most  assured  tone,  as  if  there  could  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
upon  the  subject — as  if,  in  announcing  it,  he  was  entitled  to 
demand  the  assent  of  the  whole  Christian  world:  "The  Old 
Covenant  (he  says)  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  eternal 
life,  except  by  way  of  type  or  suggestion ;  it  had  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  any,  except  with  the  nation  of  Israel; 
and  nothing  whatever  with  any  mere  individual  in  that  nation. 
It  was  made  with  the  nation  collectively  (as  if  the  collective 
nation  did  not  consist  of  an  aggregate  of  individuals!)  and  was 
entirely  temporal.  God  promised  to  give  the  land  of  Canaan 
to  the  nation  of  Israel ;  but  only  so  long  as  the  nation  col 
lectively  acknowledged  Jehovah  as  the  one  God."2  And  fur 
ther,  as  regards  the  nature  of  the  holiness  aimed  at  by  the  co 
venant,  he  says,  that  "it  was  quite  irrespective  of  individual 
righteousness.  Notwithstanding  any  sins  short  of  the  national 
infraction  of  the  covenant,  Israel  was  still  the  holy  nation." 

1  Dr.  Cox,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Wardlaw  on  Baptism,  pp.  55,  60. 

2  Johnstone's  Israel  after  the  Flesh,  p.  7. 


144  RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW 

And  he  adds,  "This  very  manifest  sense  of  the  Old  Covenant 
holiness  is  constantly  lost  sight  of,  and  errors  of  the  most  de 
structive  kind  are  caused."1 

Quotations  of  a  similar  kind  might  be  furnished  in  great 
profusion,  but  those  given  may  suffice.  They  abundantly 
show  what  crude  and  ill-digested  notions  prevail  still  among 
persons,  otherwise  well-informed,  and  holding  evangelical 
views,  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Old  Economy,  and  the 
real  position  of  God's  people  under  it.  On  the  hypothesis  of 
such  views,  there  are  some  queries  that  naturally  suggest  them 
selves  to  one's  mind,  and  to  which  it  seems  impossible  to  pro 
duce  a  satisfactory  answer.  Circumcision,  and  the  other 
ordinances  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  (it  is  alleged)  altogether 
carnal,  and  irrespective  of  personaf  holiness — how,  then,  could 
Israel  in  the  wilderness,  when  simply  standing  under  a  cove 
nant  with  such  ordinances,  have  been  reproved  and  punished 
for  murmuring  against  God,  and  want  of  faith  in  God's  pro 
mises — spiritual  acts — acts  committed  by  the  people,  while 
they  still  collectively  acknowledged  God — and  both  acts  and 
punishments  so  personal,  that  the  two  individuals  (Joshua  and 
Caleb)  who  stood  aloof  from  the  rest  in  sin,  were  also  excepted 
from  them  in  judgment?  How  could  it  be  reconciled  with  the 
notion  of  a  God  essentially  holy  and  spiritual,  to  have  imposed 
such  merely  carnal  services  upon  His  people,  with  promises 
of  blessing  if  performed,  and  threateriings  of  evil  if  neglected 
and  despised?  How  could  He  have  represented  it  as  the  end 
He  had  in  view  in  establishing  such  a  covenant,  that  lie  might 
have  a  godly  seed?  (Isa.  vi.  12;  Mai.  ii.  15.)  How  could 
there  come  to  exist  in  the  midst  of  Israel  such  seed  at  all — a 
seed  possessing  the  elements  of  real  holiness?  Whence  could 
its  members  have  their  being?  How  were  they  born?  Was 
it  altogether  apart  from  the  ordinances?  In  that  case,  must 
not  their  existence  have  been  an  anomaly,  a  miracle  accom 
plished  by  Divine  power  without  the  intervention  of  appro 
priate  means?  And  the  more  pious  individuals  of  that  seed, 
such  as  David,  and  those  who  acted  with  him,  how  could  they 
possibly  long  for,  and  rejoice  in  waiting  upon,  ordinances 

1  Johnstone's  Israel  after  the  Flesh,  p.  87. 


MORE  EXACTLY  DEFINED.  145 

which  were  wholly  carnal,  and  without  any  adaptation  to  a 
spiritual  taste?  To  such  questions  no  satisfactory  answer  can 
be  returned,  on  the  supposition  of  the  Old  Testament  ordi 
nances  being  what  those  persons  would  represent.  We 
know  of  no  way  by  which  a  spiritual  seed  can  be  expected, 
in  any  age,  to  come  into  existence,  and  find  life  to  their 
souls,  otherwise  than  through  the  ordinances  which  God  is 
pleased  to  appoint;  and  how  God  could  either  appoint  or 
dinances  altogether  carnal,  or  how,  if  appointed,  spiritual  life 
and  nourishment  could  be  derived  from  them,  is  a  mystery 
that  seems  inexplicable  on  any  grounds  of  reason  or  of  Scrip 
ture. 

Without  going  very  minutely  into  the  subject,  there  are  a 
few  leading  principles  that  may  be  laid  down  upon  it,  suffi 
cient,  if  clearly  understood,  and  kept  properly  in  view,  to 
guard  us  against  any  material  error  on  either  side. 

1.  It  must  be  held,  in  the  first  place,  as  a  fundamental  prin 
ciple,  that  whatever  difference  may  exist  between  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  as  to  their  respective  services  and  forms  of  ad 
ministration,  there  still  must  have  been  an  essential  agreement 
between  them  at  bottom — an  essential  oneness  in  their  per 
vading  character  and  spirit.  We  say,  must  have  been  so ; 
there  was  a  Divine  necessity  in  the  case,  grounded  in  the 
nature  of  Him  who  is  the  Author  of  both  covenants,  and  who 
makes  Himself  known  as  ''Jehovah  that  changes  not."  Un 
changeable  in  His  own  nature,  He  must  be  such  also  in  the 
principles  of  His  government  among  men,  not  less  than  in 
the  personal  attributes  of  His  being.  The  adversaries  of  the 
faith  in  every  age  have  well  understood  this;  and  hence,  from 
the  Manicheans  of  early  times  to  the  infidels  and  rationalistic 
writers  of  the  present  day,  they  have  ever  sought  to  overthrow 
the  foundations  of  Divine  truth  by  playing  off  one  part  of 
Scripture  against  another — exposing  what  they  deemed  the 
contrarieties  between  things  established  in  the  Old,  and  things 
taught  in  the  New  Testament;  or,  through  alleged  defects  and 
immoralities  in  the  one,  aiming  a  blow  at  the  authority  of  the 
other.  Had  they  succeeded  in  such  attempts,  their  object  had 
been  gained ;  since  Scripture  could  no  longer  be  vindicated  as  the 
13 


146         RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW 

actual  product  and  authoritative  revelation  of  an  unchange 
able  God. 

It  is  true,  as  indeed  appears  on  a  moment's  inspection,  that 
the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  addressed  itself  more  im 
mediately  to  the  outward  man,  while  that  of  the  New  addresses 
itself  more  to  the  inward.  In  ancient  times,  the  business  of 
religion — if  we  may  so  speak — was  transacted  under  the  form 
and  aspect  of  what  pertained  to  visible  and  earthly  relations: 
its  rites  and  services  had  respect  primarily  to  a  worldly  sanc 
tuary,  an  earthly  inheritance  and  a  present  life — in  these  ex 
hibiting  the  shadow  or  sensible  image  of  what  relates  to  the 
concerns  of  an  unseen  world,  and  an  eternal  existence.  They 
did,  however,  present  such  a  shadow  of  higher  realities;  and 
did  it,  not  as  an  incidental  and  subsidiary,  but  as  an  essential 
part  of  their  design;  and  not  for  some  merely,  but  for  all  the 
worshippers.  Through  the  external  and  corporeal,  God  con 
tinually  spake  to  them  of  the  internal  and  spiritual.  Under 
the  outward  shell,  and  along  with  it,  He  conveyed  to  as 
many  as  would  receive  it,  the  kernel  of  Divine  truth  and  holi 
ness; — so  that  the  same  description,  as  to  its  substance,  will 
serve  at  once  for  the  true  Israelite  and  for  the  genuine  Chris 
tian.  As  in  that  given  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  ''He  is  a  Jew 
•who  is  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in 
the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men 
(the  mere  outside  observer,)  but  of  God  (who  looks  directly 
upon  the  heart.") 

We  find  the  truth  in  this  respect  distinctly  apprehended  by 
Augustine,  and  correctly  expressed  in  the  writings  he  com 
posed  against  the  Manicheans  and  other  errorists  of  his  day. 
Referring,  in  his  work  against  Faustus  (Lib.  xii.  3,)  to  what 
the  apostle  says,  in  Rom.  iii.  and  ix.,  of  the  advantage  pos 
sessed  by  the  Jews  in  having  had  God's  oracles  and  covenants, 
he  asks,  "Why  did  he  say  that  the  covenants  belonged  to  them, 
had  it  not  been  that  the  Old  Covenant  was  given  to  them,  and 
that  the  New  was  imaged  in  the  Old?  These  men,  in  their 
senseless  folly,  are  in  the  habit  of  denouncing  the  legal  in 
stitution,  which  was  given  to  the  Israelites,  not  understanding 
its  dispensation,  and  because  God  has  thought  good  now  to 


MORE  EXACTLY  DEFINED.  147 

place  us,  not  under  law  but  under  grace.  Let  them,  there 
fore,  give  way  to  the  authority  of  the  apostle,  who,  in  lauding 
the  condition  of  the  Israelites,  mentions  it  among  their  advan 
tages,  that  to  them  had  belonged  the  giving  of  the  law,  which 
could  not  have  been  matter  of  praise,  if  it  had  been  in  itself 
bad."  And  again,  in  another  work,  written  against  one  who 
had  published  a  treatise  containing  many  things  of  an  of 
fensive  nature  against  the  law  and  the  prophets,  he  shows  the 
pervading  and  essential  agreement  of  these  with  the  Gospel, 
even  in  those  things,  in  which  this  adversary  had  sought  to 
represent  them  as  utterly  opposed  to  each  other.  In  regard, 
for  example,  to  the  punishment  of  sin,  he  both  mentions  what 
precepts  and  examples  there  were  under  the  Old  Testament 
of  a  forgiving  spirit,  and  places  alongside  the  temporal  in 
flictions  of  the  one  the  eternal  retributions  of  the  other,  thereby 
making  it  manifest  that  "in  each  Testament  alike  (as  he  says) 
there  was  at  once  a  goodness  to  be  loved,  and  a  severity  to  be 
dreaded,"  Then,  referring  to  the  inferior  nature  of  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation,  on  account  of  its  having  had  so  much 
to  do  with  outward  and  temporal  things,  he  says,  "  Neverthe 
less,  in  those  times  also  there  were  spiritual  and  righteous 
persons,  whom  the  letter  of  command  did  not  kill,  but  the  aid- 
giving  Spirit  quickened.  Whence  both  the  faith  of  a  coming 
Saviour  dwelt  in  the  prophets,  who  announced  beforehand  that 
He  should  come;  and  now,  there  are  many  carnal  persons  who 
either  give  rise  to  heresies  by  not  understanding  the  Scrip 
tures,  or  in  the  Catholic  Church  itself  are  like  babes  that  can 
only  be  fed  with  milk,  or,  still' worse,  are  preparing  like  chaff 
to  be  burned  in  the  fire.  But  as  God  is  the  sole  and  true 
Creator  of  both  temporal  and  eternal  goods,  so  is  He  also  the 
Author  of  both  Testaments  ;  because  the  New  is  as  well  figured 
in  the  Old,  as  the  Old  is  revealed  in  the  New  (quiaetNovum 
in  Vetere  est  figuratum,  et  Vetus  in  Novo  est  revelatum."1) 
2.  Very  nearly  allied  to  the  'fundamental  principle  just 
stated  is  another,  viz.,  that  the  ordinances  of  Judaism  were 
all  of  a  symbolical  nature,  not  simply  outward  or  typical.  If 
they  had  been  simply  outward  as  regards  the  service  they  re- 
1  Contra  Adversarium  Legis  et^roph.,  i.  35. 


148         RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW 

quired,  and  typical  as  regards  their  religious  value,  they 
•would  have  been  nothing  more  than  bodily  exercises  for  those 
who  engaged  in  them — exercises  that  had  respect  to  their 
purification  from  a  merely  ceremonial  uncleanness,  and  the 
preservation  of  a  present  life;  while,  in  addition  to  this,  a 
few  persons  of  superior  discernment  might  have  descried 
through  them  the  higher  and  better  things,  which  they  prefi 
gured  for  a  coming  age.  This  is  the  whole  that  many  persons 
would  find  in  the  ordinances  of  the  Old  Covenant;  and  thence 
arises  much  of  the  confusion  and  misconception  in  which  the 
subject  has  been  enveloped.  An  important  element  is  omit 
ted — the  symbolical,  lying  mid-way  between  the  other  two, 
and  forming  in  reality  the  link  that  unites  them  together.  By 
calling  them  symbolical,  we  mean,  that  they  expressed,  by 
means  of  the  outward  rite  or  action,  certain  religious  views 
and  principles,  which  the  worshipper  was  expected  in  the 
performance  of  the  service  to  recognise,  and  heartily  concur 
in.  It  was  the  conscious  recognition  of  these  views  and  prin 
ciples,  and  the  exercise  of  the  feelings  growing  out  of  them, 
for  which  more  immediately  the  outward  service  was  appointed, 
and  in  which  its  acceptability  with  God  properly  consisted. 
Without  these  the  whole  would  have  been  a  false  parade — an 
empty  and  meaningless  form.  Take  as  an  example  the  cor 
poreal  washings,  which  on  so  many  occasions  were  required 
under  the  law — these  were  not  appointed  for  the  purpose 
merely  of  removing  bodily  defilement.  Often,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  restored  leper,  purification  from  the  touch  of  a  dead 
body,  or  from  sprinkling  the  Water  of  cleansing  on  others, 
there  was  not  even  the  semblance  of  any  thing  of  that  sort  to 
be  removed.  The  washing,  in  every  case,  was  appointed  as  a 
natural  and  appropriate  symbol  of  personal  purity  on  the  part 
of  the  worshippers,  and  was  perfectly  understood  by  all  serious 
and  thoughtful  worshippers  to  carry  such  an  import.  Even 
Pilate,  though  a  heathen,  showed  his  understanding  of  this 
symbol,  by  taking  water  and  washing  his  hands  before  the 
people,  to  express  more  emphatically  than  he  could  do  by 
words  his  refusal  to  participate  in  the  condemnation  of  Jesus. 
And  the  Psalmist,  when  he  spake  of  "washing  his  hands  in 


MORE  EXACTLY  DEFINED.  149 

innocency,"  and  the  prophet,  when  he  called  on  the  crimson- 
stained  sinners  of  his  day  to  "wash  themselves,  and  make 
themselves  clean,"  gave  plain  indication  of  the  symbolical 
import  of  the  transaction.  In  like  manner — to  refer  to  the 
initiatory  ordinance  of  the  whole  series — the  rite  of  circum 
cision,  when  brought  into  connexion  with  the  Divine  covenant 
as  its  sign  and  seal,  was  by  no  means  a  merely  external  badge. 
Its  proper  aim  and  object  were  not  the  affixing  of  a  corporeal 
mark  upon  the  Jew,  and  thereby  distinguishing  him  from  the 
people  of  other  countries.  If  that  had  been  all,  it  would 
have  been  very  imperfectly  fitted  to  serve  the  end  in  view;  as 
it  is  certain  that  at  least  the  Egyptian  priesthood,  if  not  also 
some  of  the  higher  grades  of  the  people,  and  not  a  few  of  the 
Syro- Arabian  races,  practised  the  rite  from  the  very  earliest 
times.  It  is,  in  fact,  one  of  those  customs,  the  origin  of  which 
is  lost  in  a  remote  antiquity.  But  when  adopted  by  God  in 
connexion  with  His  covenant  as  its  appropriate  token  and 
seal,  it  thenceforth  became  a  symbol  of  purification  from  the 
guilt  and  pollution  of  the  flesh — the  symbol  of  a  transition 
from  nature's  depravity  into  a  spiritual  and  holy  life.  This 
transition  should  have  been  effected  in  all  who  stood  within 
the  bonds  of  the  covenant;  and  in  those  whose  state  accorded 
with  their  profession,  it  must  in  reality  have  been  effected.  It 
was,  therefore,  the  distinctive  badge  of  Israel,  not  simply  as 
a  separate  people,  but  as  God's  covenant~peop\e^  called  and 
bound  to  cast  off  nature's  impurity,  and  walk  in  righteousness 
before  God.  This,  too,  was  perfectly  understood  by  all  the 
more  serious  and  thoughtful  portion  of  the  Israelites;  and 
they  did  not  need  the  higher  revelations  of  the  Gospel  to  dis 
close  its  import.  Moses  himself  pointed  to  it  as  a  thing  which 
even  then  was  familiarly  known  and  understood,  when  he  re 
presented  the  people,  in  their  state  of  impenitence  and  guilt, 
as  being  of  uncircumcised  hearts  (Lev.  xxvi.  41 ;)  and  on  this 
very  account, — because  circumcision  had  a  strictly  moral  im 
port,  it  was  suspended  during  the  thirty-eight  years'  sojourn 
in  the  wilderness;  since  the  people  being  then  under  the 
judgment  of  heaven  for  their  sins,  they  were  held  to  be  in  an 
unfit  state  for  having  the  ordinance  administered  to  them. 

13* 


150         RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW 

Such,  at  least,  appears  the  main  reason  for  the  disuse  of  the 
ordinance  during  that  long  period.  Circumcision,  therefore, 
if  viewed  according  to  the  design  of  God,  and  its  own  em 
blematic  import,  was  no  more  a  merely  outward  and  corporeal 
thing,  than  baptism  now  is;  the  one  had  respect  to  the  be 
liever's  spiritual  position  and  call  to  righteousness,  not  less 
than  the  other.  In  both  cases  alike  the  opus  operatum  might 
stand  alone;  the  sign  might  be  without  the  thing  signified; 
since  no  ordinance  of  God  ever  has  salvation  indissolubly 
linked  to  it;  while  yet  the  two  would  always  in  point  of  fact 
be  connected  together,  if  the  ordinances  were  used  in  a  spirit 
of  sincerity  and  truth. 

2.  This  second  princ'ple,  which  ascribes  a  symbolical  or 
spir'tual  import  to  all  the  rites  and  ordinances  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  like  the  first,  has  its  ultimate  ground  in  the  nature 
of  God — in  the  essential  holiness  of  His  character.  Pre 
cisely  as  God's  unchangeableness  rendered  it  necessary,  that 
there  should  be  in  everything  of  vital  moment  a  fundamental 
agreement  between  Judaism  and  Christianity;  so  the  pure  and 
unspotted  holiness  of  God,  which  comes  out  in  the  very  first 
revelations  of  the  Bible,  and  holds  in  all  of  them  the  most 
prominent  place,  rendered  it  necessary,  that  the  Covenant, 
•with  every  rite  and  institution  belonging  to  it,  should  have 
respect  to  moral  purity.  What  is  essential  and  pre-eminent 
in  God  himself  must  appear  also  essential  and  pre-eminent  in 
His  public  administration.  And  hence  in  the  very  centre  of 
the  Mosaic  polity — as  the  standard  by  which  every  thing  was 
to  be  judged,  and  the  end  to  which  it  pointed — lay  the  two 
tables  of  the  moral  law — the  comprehensive  summary  of  love 
to  God  and  man.  Hence  also,  in  some  of  those  parts  of  the 
laws  of  Moses,  which  prescribe  the  more  peculiar  ceremonial 
institutions,  the  reason  of  their  appointment  is  placed  in  im 
mediate  connexion  with  the  holiness  of  God;  as  in  Lev.  xx. 
25,  20,  where  the  command  is  re-enforced  as  to  the  distinction 
to  be  put  between  clean  and  unclean  in  food,  it  is  addfid  as 
the  ground  of  the  requirement,  "And  ye  shall  be  holy  unto 
Me,  for  I,  the  Lord,  am  holy,  and  I  have  severed  you  from 
other  people,  that  ye  should  be  Mine."  So  again  in  ch.  xxii., 


MORE  EXACTLY  DEFINED.  151 

after  a  multitude  of  prescriptions  regarding  sacrifice,  and  the 
eating  of  the  flesh  of  peace-offerings,  the  whole  is  wound  up 
by  pointing  to  the  fundamental  reason,  "I  am  Jehovah  ;  there 
fore  shall  ye  keep  My  commandments  and  do  them;  I  am 
Jehovah.  Neither  shall  ye  profane  My  holy  name ;  but  I 
will  be  hallowed  among  the  children  of  Israel ;  I  am  Jehovah, 
that  hallow  you."  The  entire  ritual  had  its  foundation  in 
God,  in  the  principles  of  His  character  and  government, 
whither  the  people  were  directed  to  look  for  the  ultimate 
ground  of  the  laws  and  institutions  they  were  commanded  to 
observe.  As  the  one  was  pre-eminently  moral,  so,  of  neces 
sity  was  the  other;  and  no  enlightened  Israelite  could  regard 
the  services  of  his  symbolical  worship,  any  more  than  the 
statutes  and  judgments  of  his  theocratic  polity,  in  any  other 
light  than  as  a  system  of  means  and  appliances  for  securing 
purity  of  heart  and  conduct. 

3.  It  is  clear  then — and  we  state  it,  as  equally  a  deduction 
from  what  has  preceded,  and  a  third  point  to  be  kept  in  view, 
in  all  the  representations  that  may  be  made  in  such  matters — 
that  the  true  Israelites,  those  who  were  such  in  the  reckoning 
of  God,  were  a  spiritual,  not  a  fleshly  seed;  and  that  the 
rearing  of  such  a  seed,  not  any  outward  and  formal  separa 
tion  from  the  world,  was  the  direct  aim  of  the  laws  and  insti 
tutions  of  Moses.  That  the  dwelling  of  the  people  alone,  in 
a  state  of  isolation  from  the  other  nations  of  the  earth,  or 
antagonism  to  them,  could  never  of  itself  have  been  designed 
to  form  the  principal  reason  of  the  ancient  economy,  is  evi 
dent — not  only  from  the  considerations  already  advanced — 
but  also  from  the  very  end  of  their  peculiar  calling  in  Abra 
ham,  which  was  to  be  first  blessed  in  themselves,  and  then  to 
be  a  blessing  to  others — a  blessing  even  to  all  the  families  of 
the  earth.  It  can  never  be  by  an  isolating  and  frowning  ex- 
clusiveness,  that  they  could  fulfil  this  ulterior  part  of  their 
destination;  it  could  only  be  by  operating  in  a  kindly  and 
beneficent  manner  upon  the  nations  around  them,  diffusing 
among  them  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  extending  the  boun 
daries  of  His  kingdom.  That  this  was  from  the  first  contem 
plated  by  God  may  certainly  be  inferred  from  the  admission 


152         RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW 

of  proselyte  strangers,  even  in  Abraham's  time,  into  the  bosom 
of  the  covenant,  (Gen.  xvii.  12,)  and  from  the  law  afterwards 
prescribed  regarding  it  (Ex.  xii.  48.)     It  is  still  further  evi 
dent  from   the  prayer  of  Solomon  at  the  dedication  of  the 
temple,  which  made  express  mention  of  the  case  of  strangers 
coming  to  intermingle  their  devotions  with  those  of  the  house 
of  Israel;  and   from   the  fact,  that  whenever  the  covenant- 
people  were  in  a  lively  and  prosperous  state,  there  was  a  dis 
position,  on  the  part  of  others,  to  share  with  them  in  their 
privileges  and  blessings,  as  in  the  times  of  David  and  Solomon, 
(I  Chron.  xxii.   2;    2   Chron.  ii.  17.)     So  far,  indeed,  were 
David  and  the  prophets  from  thinking  it  the  glory  of  Israel 
to  be  alone,  that  they  anticipated  with  joy  the  time  when  kings 
would  bring  presents  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  Lord's  house  should 
become  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations.     So  long,  certainly, 
as  the  people  of  other  countries  abode  in  heathenism,  it  was 
inevitable  that  Israel  should  dwell  apart — if  they  remained 
faithful  to  their  calling.    But  the  separation  in  that  case  was 
only  the  necessary  result  of  Israel's  holiness,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  corruptions  of  the  Gentiles,  on  the  other;  nor  was  it 
for  any  other  end,  than  as  the  fittest  means,  in  the  existing 
state  of  the  world,  for  producing  and  maintaining  that  holi 
ness  in  the  families  of  Israel,  that  the  laws  and  ordinances  of 
the  Old  Covenant  were  established.     So,  indeed,  the  Apostle 
Paul  distinctly  declared,  when  in  Gal.  iii.  19,  he  said,  "Where 
fore,  then,  serveth  the  law?     It  was  added  because  of  trans 
gressions," — added,  that  is,  to  the  prior  covenant  made  with 
Abraham,  on  account  of  the  people's  proneness  to  transgress. 
That  covenant  was  not  of  itself  sufficient  to  restrain  them; 
and  the  law,  with  its  explicit  requirements  of  duty,  and  its 
terrible  sanctions,  was  given   to  supplement  the  deficiency. 
The  law,  therefore,  when   rightly  understood  and   properly 
used,  was  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  covenant;  it  occupied 
an  inferior  and  subsidiary  place,  but  in  that  place  was  alike 
designed  and  fitted   for  qualifying  the  people  to  carry  into 
effect  the  objects  of  the  covenant.     And  as  it  was  not  the  aim 
of  the  covenant  to   make   Israel   merely  a  separate  people, 
walled  off  by  certain  distinctive  peculiarities  from  others,  as 


MORE  EXACTLY  DEFINED.  158 

little  could  it  be  the  proper  aim  of  the  law.  The  scope  and 
tendency  of  both,  indeed,  was  for  righteousness,  and  their 
common  end  was  accomplished  only  in  so  far  as  there  was 
produced  a  spiritual  and  holy  seed  to  God. 

4.  It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  in  the  fourth  place, 
that  the  difference,  as  to  privilege  and  character,  between  the 
genuine  members  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Covenants,  must 
be  relative  only,  and  not  absolute.  It  should  be  exhibited, 
not  as  a  contrast  between  two  opposites,  but  as  an  ascending 
gradation,  a  rising  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  stage  of  develop 
ment.  A  contrast,'  no  doubt,  is  sometimes  presented  in  the 
New  Testament  between  law  and  grace,  between  the  darkness 
and  servile  condition  before  Christ's  coming,  and  the  light 
and  liberty  that  followed.  But  the  darkness  was  not  that  of 
total  ignorance,  nor  was  the  bondage  properly  that  of  slaves, 
but  of  children  rather,  who  from  their  imperfect  discernment 
and  feeble  powers  required  to  be  hemmed  in  by  outward  re 
straints,  and  stimulated  by  artificial  expedients.  When  the 
Prophet  Jeremiah  represents  (ch.  xxxi.)  the  distinction  between 
the  Old  Covenant  then  existing,  and  the  New  and  better  one 
some  time  to  be  introduced,  as  consisting  in  the  putting  of 
the  Divine  laws  into  the  hearts  of  the  people,  and  engraving 
them  in  their  inward  parts,  the  representation  can  only  have 
been  meant  to  indicate  a  more  effectual  and  general  accom 
plishment  of  this  spiritual  result,  than  had  hitherto  appeared, 
not  its  absolute  commencement.  For,  beyond  all  question, 
the  internal  revelation  of  the  law  was  to  a  certain  extent  pos 
sessed  also  in  former  times — possessed  by  every  true  Israelite, 
of  whom  it  was  written,  "The  law  of  God  is  in  his  heart," 
and  "he  meditates  therein  day  and  night."  And  in  what 
chiefly  did  the  reforming  agency  of  David  and  many  of  the 
prophets  appear?  Was  it  not  in  their  earnest  striving  to 
awaken  the  people  to  the  insufficiency  of  a  dead  formalism, 
and  have  them  brought  to  the  cultivation  of  such  holiness  as 
the  law  required? 

There  was  something  more,  then,  in  the  relation  between 
Judaism  and  Christianity,  than  that  of  type  and  antitype — 
in  the  sense  commonly  understood  by  these  terms;  there  was 


154         RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW 

the  relation  also  of  germ  and  development,  beginning  and 
end.  The  Christian  Church,  if  in  one  respect  a  new  thing  in 
the  earth,  is,  in  another,  a  continuation  and  expansion  of  the 
Jewish.  As  was  long  ago  well  stated  by  Crucius,  "Israel  is 
the  basis  and  the  body  itself  of  the  church,  which  must  con 
tinue  to  grow  and  diffuse  itself  more  and  more;  and  this  it 
does,  not  by  virtue  of  its  corporeal  descent,  but  on  account  of 
its  faith  and  obedience  towards  God's  covenant  of  grace  with 
it,  in  virtue  of  which  it  obtains  the  heritage  of  the  heathen. 
When  Paul  in  Gal.  vi.  16,  speaks  of  the  true  Israel  of  God, 
he  means  thereby  believing  Israelites,  whom  he  opposes  to 
the  enemies  of  Christ.  And  these  Israelites  did  not  pass  over 
to  the  heathen,  but  the  heathen  to  them,  (Eph.  ii.  19,  iii.  6; 
Phil.  iii.  3;  Col.  ii.  11;  Acts  xiii.  32,  xxvi.  6,  7.)  In  this 
sense  true  Christians  are  reckoned  to  Israel;  and  as  the  an 
cient  Israel  of  God  could,  before  Christ's  appearance,  receive 
proselytes  among  themselves,  who  thereafter  became  part  of 
the  covenant  people;  so  now,  since  the  appearance  of  Christ, 
they  have  by  reason  of  the  covenant  and  the  promise,  already 
become  greatly  enlarged  through  the  incorporation  of  multi 
tudes  of  the  heathen,  and  shall  at  length  receive  the  whole 
earth  for  a  possession.  And  this  entire  body  of  the  church, 
of  which  the  believing  portion  of  Israel  formed  the  foundation, 
shall  one  day  also  receive  the  remnant  of  the  other  portion, 
the  apostacy,  into  its  bosom."1 

5.  From  all  these  premises,  there  arises  still  another  con 
clusion,  a  fifth  point  to  be  kept  steadily  in  view,  viz.,  that  the 
ordinances  of  the  two  covenants,  like  the  conditions  of  their 
respective  members,  can  admit  only  of  relative  differences. 
Differences  certainly  exist,  corresponding  in  nature  to  the 
change  in  the  Divine  economy,  and  the  spiritual  condition  of 
those  placed  under  it;  and  these  must  be  carefully  marked 
and  explained  in  accordance  with  the  truth  of  things — other 
wise,  countenance  may  be  given  to  grievous  mistakes.  It  was 
here  that  Augustine,  in  common  with  so  many  of  the  fathers, 
chiefly  erred,  though  holding  correct  views  in  the  general  as 
to  the  connexion  between  Judaism  and  Christianity.  The  one 
1  In  Delitzsch's  Biblisch.  proph.,  p.  132. 


MORE  EXACTLY  DEFINED.  155 

was  clearly  enough  seen  to  be  the  preparation  and  shadow  of 
the  other;  but  in  drawing  out  the  connexion  to  particular 
points,  too  little  account  was  made  of  the  rise  that  had  taken 
place  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  sphere;  a  tendency  rather  was 
shown  to  regard  the  antitype  as  equally  outward  and  formal 
with  the  type.  Hence,  in  the  first  instance,  the  typology  of 
the  Old  Testament  was  caricatured,  by  having  the  most  fortu 
itous  and  superficial  resemblances  turned  into  adumbrations 
of  Gospel  mysteries;  and  then  the  theology  of  the  New  was 
carnalized,  by  being  cast  into  the  form  and  pattern  of  the 
Old;  the  observance  of  days  and  seasons  in  the  one  inferring, 
it  was  thought,  a  like  observance  in  the  other — and,  as  of  old, 
so  also  now,  it  was  held,  that  there  should  be  an  altar,  with 
its  consecrated  priesthood  and  material  oblations — a  visible 
unity  in  the  church,  from  which  it  was  heresy,  even  in  matters 
of  ceremony,  to  deviate — and,  at  last,  a  supreme  earthly  head, 
on  whose  will  were  conceived  to  hang  the  issues  of  life  and 
death  for  entire  Christendom.  A  mournful  result  in  any  cir 
cumstances;  but  rendered  greatly  more  so  by  the  considera 
tion,  that  among  the  forces  tending  to  produce  it  must  be 
placed  the  venerable  name  of  Augustine,  who,  in  his  interpre 
tations,  often  falls  into  the  mistaken  carnalism,  out  of  which 
the  evil  might  be  said  to  have  originated. 

But  while  shunning  this  form  of  error,  care  must  be  taken 
to  avoid  falling  into  another.  And  the  principle  must  be  held 
fast,  that  in  the  ordinances  of  the  two  covenants  there  can  be 
room  only  for  differences  of  a  relative  kind.  The  sacrifices 
and  ablutions  of  the  Old  Testament  were  not  simply  carnal 
institutions,  no  more  than  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  now 
are.  They  also  pertained  to  the  conscience,  and,  to  be  accep 
tably  engaged  in,  required  faith  on  the  part  of  the  worshipper. 
It  is  true,  that  "  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience,  they  could 
not  make  the  comers  to  them  perfect;"  they  could  not  pre 
sent  to  the  worshippers  a  full,  complete,  and  permanent  ground 
of  peace;  whence  a  perpetual  renewal  of  the  sacrifices  was 
needed  to  reassure  the  conscience  after  fresh  acts  of  trans 
gression.  Yet,  this  by  no  means  proves,  that  they  had  to  do 
merely  with  the  purification  of  the  flesh.  There  were  certain 


156         RELATION  OF  THE  OLD  TO  THE  NEW 

fleshly  or  ceremonial  defilements,  such  as  the  touching  of  a 
dead  body,  for  which  purification  was  obtained  by  means  of 
water,  mixed  with  the  ashes  of  a  red  heifer; — and  to  that  the 
apostle  refers  in  Heb.  ix.  13.  But  it  is  an  utter  misappre 
hension  of  his  meaning,  to  understand  him  there  to  assert, 
that  all  the  offerings  of  the  law  were  of  force  merely  to  purify 
the  flesh.  What  could  purifications  of  such  a  kind  have 
availed  one,  who  had  been  guilty  of  fraud,  or  oppression,  or 
deceit,  or  false  swearing?  Yet  for  such  sins,  forgiveness  was 
attainable  through  the  appointed  offerings,  Lev.  vi.  1 — 7. 

We  hold  it,  therefore,  as  most  certain,  that  there  was  also 
a  spiritual  element  in  all  the  services  of  the  Old  Covenant, 
and  that  their  unsuitableness  to  Gospel  times  does  not  arise 
from  their  having  been  exclusively  carnal  and  outward.  It 
arises,  partly  from  their  being  too  predominantly  symbolical 
for  a  religion,  which  contains  a  full  revelation  of  the  truth ; 
and  partly  also  from  their  having  been  peculiarly  adapted  for 
bringing  into  view  the  demands  of  law,  and  the  liabilities  of 
debt,  while  they  provided  only  a  temporary  expedient  as  to 
the  way  of  relief — no  more  than  a  shadow  of  the  real  satis 
faction.  So  that  for  men  to  cleave  to  the  Old  Testament  ser 
vices  after  Christ  had  come,  as  a  matter  essential  to  salvation, 
was  in  effect  to  say,  that  they  did  not  regard  the  death  of 
Christ  as  in  itself  a  perfect  satisfaction  for  the  guilt  of  sin, 
but  that  it  needed  the  purifications  of  the  law  to  render  it 
complete — thereby  at  once  dishonouring  Christ,  and  taking 
the  legal  ceremonies  for  something  more  than  they  really  were. 
But  still,  these  ceremonies,  when  rightly  understood,  differed 
from  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel  only  in  degree,  not  in  kind; 
and  it  is  perfectly  competent  for  us  to  draw  conclusions  from 
the  nature  and  administration  of  the  one,  to  the  nature  and 
administration  of  the  other.  Here,  as  in  so  many  other  things, 
there  is  a  middle  path,  which  is  the  right  one;  and  it  is  just 
as  easy  to  err  from  it  by  carnalizing  too  much  in  Judaism,  as 
by  Judaizing  too  much  in  Christianity. 


TROPICAL  PASSAGES.  157 


SECTION  EIGHTH. 

ON  THE  PROPER  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  TROPICAL  PARTS  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT. 

AMONG  the  portions  of  New  Testament  Scripture  which  re 
quire  a  separate  hermeneutical  consideration,  are  those  in  which 
tropes  or  figures  are  employed.  Some  of  the  examples  given 
under  the  last  two  divisions  might  in  part  be  referred  to  this  head, 
for  there  is  also  a  figurative  element  in  them.  But  other 
portions  belong  more  properly  to  it;  and  the  class  is  of  suffi 
cient  compass  and  moment  to  entitle  it  to  special  inquiry. 
The  subject,  however,  does  not  hold  so  large  a  place  in  the 
hermeneutics  of  the  New  Testament  as  it  does  in  those  of  the 
Old ;  for  the  poetical  enters  more  into  the  composition  of  the 
Old,  and  poetry,  from  its  very  nature,  delights  in  the  use  of 
figure.  In  both  the  prophetical,  and  the  more  distinctively 
poetical  books  of  Old  Testament  Scripture,  the  boldest  images 
are  introduced,  and  the  language  has  throughout  a  figurative 
colouring.  But  of  these  we  are  not  called  to  treat  at  present. 
We  have  to  do  merely  with  that  more  sparing  and  restricted 
use  of  tropical  language,  which  appears  in  the  New  Testa 
ment,  and  was  not  incompatible  with  its  clearer  revelations 
and  its  more  didactic  aim.  Reference,  however,  may  also  be 
occasionally  made,  by  way  of  illustration,  to  passages  in  the 
Old  Testament. 

It  is,  perhaps,  scarcely  necessary  to  state,  yet,  in  case  of 
any  misapprehension,  it  may  as  well  be  stated,  that  the  terms 
figurative  and  tropical,  on  the  one  side,  and  those  of  literal 
and  grammatical,  on  the  other,  may  be  employed  indiscrimi 
nately,  as  being  substantially  of  the  same  import.  The  one 
pair  happen  to  be  derived  from  the  Greek,  and  the  other  from 
the  Latin,  but,  in  each  case,  from  words  that  precisely  cor 
respond.  Literal,  from  the  Latin  litera,  denotes  the  mean 
ing  of  a  word,  which  is  according  to  the  letter,  the  meaning 
it  bears  in  its  original  or  primary  use ;  and  nothing  else  is  in- 
14 


158         PROPER  METHOD  OF  INTERPRETING 

dicated  by  the  term  grammatical,  in  this  connexion,  the  word 
of  Greek  derivation  for  what  is  according  to  the  ypd/jt/jta  or 
letter.  But  when  a  word,  originally  appropriated  to  one  thing, 
comes  to  be  applied  to  another,  which  bears  some  real  or  fan 
cied  resemblance  to  it,  as  there  is  then  a  rp6~oz  or  turning 
of  it  to  a  new  use,  so  the  meaning  is  called  tropical,  or,  if  we 
prefer  the  Latin  form  of  expression,  figurative — there  being 
always  some  sort  of  figure  or  image  suggested  to  the  mind  in 
this  new  use  of  the  term,  founded  either  on  resemblance  or 
some  other  link  of  connexion,  and  forming  a  natural  transi 
tion  from  the  original  to  the  derived  sense.  Very  commonly 
also  the  word  proper  is  used  to  denote  the  original  import  of 
words,  and  improper  the  figurative.  But  as  these  epithets 
are  fitted  to  suggest  wrong  ideas,  it  is  better  not  to  employ 
them  in  such  a  connexion. 

All  languages  are  more  or  less  figurative;  for  the  mind  of 
man  is  essentially  analogical,  and  delights  to  trace  resem 
blances  between  one  object  and  another,  and  embody  them  in 
forms  of  speech.  In  strictly  mental  operations,  and  in  regard 
to  things  lying  beyond  the  reach  of  sense  or  time,  it  is  obliged 
to  resort  to  figurative  terms ; — for  only  through  the  form  and 
aspect  of  sensible  objects  can  it  picture  to  itself  and  express 
what  lies  in  those  hidden  chambers  of  imagery.  And  the 
more  vivid  its  own  feelings  and  conceptions  are  respecting  spi 
ritual  and  Divine  things,  or  the  more  it  seeks  to  give  a  present 
and  abiding  impression  of  these  to  the  mind  of  others,  the  more 
also  will  it  naturally  call  to  its  aid  the  realistic  language  of 
tropes  and  metaphors.  Hence  the  predominant  use  of  such 
language  in  sacred  poetry;  and  hence  also  its  occasional  em 
ployment  by  Christ  and  His  apostles,  in  order  to  invest  their 
representations  of  Divine  things  with  the  greater  force  and 
emphasis. 

I.  In  applying  our  minds  to  this  subject,  the  first  point  that 
naturally  calls  for  inquiry,  has  respect  to  the  proper  mode  of 
ascertaining  when  words  are  employed,  not  literally,  but  tro 
pically.  How  may  we  assure  ourselves,  or  can  we  assure  our 
selves,  against  any  mistake  in  the  matter? 


TROPICAL  PASSAGES.  159 

This  branch  of  hermeneutical  inquiry  began  to  receive  some 
consideration  in  comparatively  early  times;  and  in  Augustine's 
treatise.  De  doctrina  Christiana,  we  find  certain  rules  laid 
down  for  determining  what  in  Scripture  should  be  taken  lite 
rally,  and  what  figuratively.  These  are,  certainly,  somewhat 
imperfect,  as  might  have  been  expected,  considering  the  pe 
riod  when  they  were  written :  yet  they  are  not  without  their 
value,  and  if  they  had  been  followed  up  by  others,  with  any 
measure  of  Augustine's  discernment,  they  might  have  kept 
the  early  church  from  many  false  interpretations,  on  which 
the  most  unscriptural  and  superstitious  views  leaned  for  sup 
port. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  it  may  be  noted,  that  in  a  large  num 
ber  of  cases,  by  much  the  larger  number  of  cases,  where  the 
language  is  tropical,  the  fact  that  it  is  so  appears  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  language,  or  from  the  connexion  in  which 
it  stands.     This  holds  especially  of  that  kind  of  tropical  lan 
guage,  which  consists  in  tfie  employment  of  metaphor — i.  e., 
when  one  object  is  set  forth  under  the  image  of  another;  and 
in  the  employment  of  parable,  which  is  only  an  extended  me 
taphor.     Thus,  when  Jacob  says  of  Judah,  "  Judah  is  a  lion's 
whelp,  from  the  prey,  my  son,  thou  art  gone  up;"  or  when 
our  Lord  designated  two  of  His  disciples  by  the  name  of  Bo 
anerges,  "Sons  of  thunder;"  or,  again,  when  He  spake  of 
the  difficulties  connected  with  an  admission  into  His  kingdom, 
under  the  necessity  of  "being  born  again,"  and  of  "  entering 
a  strait  gate  and  treading  a  narrow  way;" — in  all  these  and 
many  examples  of  a  like  nature,  the  tropical  element  is  pal 
pable;  a  child,  indeed,  might  perceive  it;  and  the  only  room 
for  consideration  is,  how  the  lines  of  resemblance  should  be 
drawn  between  the  literal  and  the  figurative  sense   of  the 
terms.     The  same  also  may  be  said,  and  with  still  stronger 
emphasis,  of  formal  similitudes  and  parables,  in  which  the  li 
teral  interpretation  is  expressly,  or  by  plain  implication,  taken 
as  the  mere  cover  of  something  higher  and  greater. 

2.  Another  class  of  passages,  in  which  the  figure  is  also, 
for  the  most  part,  quite  easy  of  detection,  are  those  in  which 
what  is  called  synechdoehe  prevails — i.  e.  in  which  a  part  is 


160  PROPER  METHOD  OF  INTERPRETING 

put  for  the  whole;  as  a  cup  for  its  contents,  "  Take  this  cup 
and  drink  it,"  or,  "  Ye  cannot  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord  and 
the  cup  of  devils."  It  is  manifest,  that  in  such  cases  the  cup 
does  not  stand  alone;  it  is  viewed  merely  as  the  symbol  of 
the  draught  presented  in  it.  So  in  other  passages,  where 
there  is  a  kind  of  metonymy,  such  as  putting  a  cause  for  an 
effect,  or  an  effect  for  a  cause: — for  example,  when  our  Lord 
says  of  Himself,  "  I  am  not  come  to  send  peace  upon  earth, 
but  a  sword;"  or  when,  inversely,  the  apostle  Paul,  in  another 
connexion,  says  of  Him,  "He  is  our  peace."  In  examples 
of  this  description  also  there  is  no  difficulty;  it  is  obvious, 
that  a  particular  result  is  in  the  eye  of  the  writer,  and  that, 
for  the  sake  of  point  and  brevity,  the  object  or  person  is  iden 
tified  with  that  result,  or  with  the  natural  cause  and  instru 
ment  of  effecting  it,  as  if  they  were  one  and  the  same. 

But  still,  when  all  such  examples  as  those  now  referred  to 
have  been  taken  into  account,  there  remains  a  considerable 
number, — especially  of  the  class  cafted  metonymies,  in  regard 
to  which  it  is  not  so  easy  to  determine  whether  the  language 
should  be  understood  literally  or  tropically.  It  may,  for  in 
stance,  be  questioned,  whether  our  Lord,  in  Matt.  v.  23,  where 
He  speaks  of  bringing  a  gift  to  the  altar,  means  an  actual  al 
tar  for  the  presentation  of  sacrificial  offerings,  or  something 
in  the  spiritual  sphere  that  might  be  held  equivalent  to  it: — 
whether,  again,  when  speaking  of  His  followers  eating  His 
body  and  drinking  His  blood,  He  meant  a  corporeal  or  a  spi 
ritual  participation : — or  Paul,  when  he  makes  mention  of  a 
fire  that  is  to  try  every  man's  work,  (1  Cor.  iii.  13,)  whether 
he  has  respect  to  the  material  element  of  fire,  or  to  a  process 
of  judgment,  which  in  spiritual  things  will  have  the  same  ef 
fect  as  a  searching  fire  in  earthly.  It  is  well  known,  that 
these  questions  are  answered  very  differently,  and  that  great 
points  of  doctrine  hang  on  the  specific  interpretations  adopted. 
Nor  is  it  possible,  by  any  sharply  defined  rules  to  settle  con 
clusively  the  view  that  should  be  taken;  for  the  settling  of 
the  rules  would  necessarily  involve  a  discussion  of  the  parti 
cular  cases  to  which  we  wish  to  apply  them.  It  is  more, 
therefore,  to  the  general  principles  of  interpretation — to  the 


TROPICAL  PASSAGES.  161 

proper  mode  and  habit  of  dealing  with  the  Word  of  God,  the 
accurate  analysis  of  its  terms,  the  close  and  discriminating 
examination  of  the  scope  and  connexion: — it  is  to  this,  more 
than  to  any  specific  directions,  that  we  are  to  look  for  obtain 
ing  the  skill  to  determine  between  the  literal  and  the  tropical 
in  the  less  obvious  cases.  At  the  same  time,  there  are  two 
or  three  leading  principles,  which,  if  fairly  and  consistently 
applied,  might,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  be  sufficient  to  guide 
to  a  right  decision. 

(1.)  The  first  of  these  is,  that  when  any  thing  is  said,  which, 
if  taken  according  to  the  letter,  would  be  at  variance  with  the 
essential  nature  of  the  subject  spoken  of,  the  language  must 
be  regarded  as  tropical.     This  principle  requires  to  be  little 
more  than  enunciated ;  it  carries  its  own  evidence  along  with 
it.     No  single  act,  no  particular  attribute,  can  be  ascribed  by 
an  intelligent  writer  to  a  person  or  an  object,  which  is  incon 
sistent  with  their  proper  nature.     So  that,  on  the  supposition 
of  that  nature  being  known  to  us,  we  can  be  at  no  loss  to  un 
derstand  in  what  sense  the  language  should  be  taken.     Thus, 
it  is  essential  to  the  nature  of  God,  that  He  is  spirit  and  not 
flesh — a   Spirit  infinite,   eternal,   and  unchangeable ;    conse 
quently  without  bodily  parts,  which  are  necessarily  bounded 
by  space  and  time;  without  liability  to  passionate  excitation 
or  erring  purposes,  which  arise  from  creaturely  limitations. 
Hence  all  those  passages,  which  represent  God  as  possessed 
of  human  powers  and  organs,  as  seeing,  or  hearing,  or  having 
experience  of  such  affections  as  are  the  result  of  human  weak 
ness  and  infirmity,  must  be  understood  in  a  figurative  sense. 
Nor  can  it  be  otherwise  with  those  things,  which  are  spoken 
of  the  soul  and  its  spiritual  life  in  terms  borrowed  from  what 
pertains  to  the  body: — As  when  our  Lord  calls  on  His  fol 
lowers  to  cut  off  their  right  hand  and  pluck  out  their  right  eye, 
or  when  St.  Paul  speaks  of  crucifying  the  flesh,  and  putting 
off  the  old  man  of  corruption.    In  such  cases  the  path  is  clear ; 
we  must  keep  strictly  in  view  the  essential  nature  of  the  sub 
ject  discoursed  of;  and  since  that  is  not  such  as  to  admit  of 
an  application  of  the  language  in  the  literal  sense,  we  can. 
have  no  hesitation  about  understanding  it  tropically. 

14* 


1C2  PROPER  METHOD  OF  INTERPRETING 

(2.)  A  second  principle  applicable  to  such  cases,  is,  that  if 
the  language  taken  literally  would  involve  something  incon 
gruous  or  morally  improper,  the  figurative,  and  not  the  literal 
sense,  must  be  the  right  one.  If  the  literal  implies  nothing 
contrary  to  sense  and  reason — if  the  instruction  it  conveys  is 
in  accordance  with  the  great  moral  distinctions  impressed 
upon  the  conscience,  and  written  in  the  Word  of  God,  then  it 
may  safely  be  adhered  to  as  the  sense  actually  intended. 
But  if  otherwise,  we  must  abandon  the  literal  for  the  figura 
tive.  The  passage  formerly  referred  to  in  another  connexion 
— Rom.  xii.  20 — may  be  taken  as  an  example;  it  is  the  ex 
hortation  to  heap  coals  of  fire  on  an  enemy's  head,  by  show 
ing  kindness  to  him  in  the  time  of  want  and  necessity.  The 
action  itself  here  specified  (whatever  may  be  understood  of 
the  motive  involved  in  it,)  must  in  any  case  be  understood  figu 
ratively ;  since  the  heaping  of  coals  of  fire  on  the  head  of  an 
other  must  plainly  have  respect  to  the  moral  influence  of  the 
things  done  to  him  upon  his  state  or  character.  But  further, 
in  regard  to  the  kind  of  operation  intended,  or  the  nature  of 
the  effect  to  be  wrought,  held  out  as  the  motive  for  exertion 
in  the  manner  specified,  it  must  be,  as  Augustine  long  ago 
remarked,  of  a  beneficial,  not  of  an  injurious  description,  since 
it  is  brought  in  to  enforce  a  precept  of  benevolence,  and  must, 
therefore,  have  contemplated  the  good  of  the  parties  interested.1 
There  are  many  similar  examples  in  the  Proverbs,  where  the 
one  just  noticed  originally  occurs;  as — to  mention  only  an 
other — when  a  person  sitting  at  meat  with  a  ruler  is  exhorted 
to  put  "a  knife  to  his  throat,"  meaning  that  he  must  set 
bounds  to  his  appetite — slay,  in  a  manner,  his  voracity.  In 
like  manner,  our  Lord  says,  "  If  any  man  will  come  after  Me, 
let  him  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  Me," — "Whosoever  loveth 
his  life,  shall  lose  it," — "Make  to  yourselves  friends  of  the 
mammon  of  unrighteousness;" — in  each  of  which  passages 

1  Aug.  De  Doc.  Christiana,  iii.  10,  Ne  igitur  dubitaveris  figurate  dictum; 
et  cum  possit  duplicitcr  interpretari,  uno  rnodo  ad  nocendum,  altero  ad  prse- 
standum;  ad  bcneficentiam  te  potius  charitas  revocat,  ut  intelligas  carbones 
ignis  csse  urentes  pocnitentioe  gcmitus,  quibus  superbia  sanatur  ejus  qui  dolet 
se  inimicuui  fuisso  homiais,  a  quo  ejus  miseriye  subvenitur. 


TROPICAL  PASSAGES.  163 

there  must  be  a  certain  amount  of  figure ;  since,  to  bear  a 
cross,  and  to  love  life,  in  the  natural  sense  of  the  expression, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  things  fitted  to  carry  with  them  the 
consequences  of  good  and  evil  with  which  they  are  associated, 
nor  can  it  be  deemed  proper,  otherwise  than  by  a  figure,  to 
make  for  one's  self  a  friend  of  what  is  unrighteous.  In  such 
cases,  we  can  only  get  at  the  true  meaning  by  penetrating 
beneath  the  surface,  and  apprehending  a  moral  act  or  line  of 
behaviour  as  the  object  presented  to  our  notice. 

(3.)  A  third  direction  may  be  added;  viz.,  that  where  we 
have  still  reason  to  doubt  whether  the  language  is  literal  or 
figurative,  we  should  endeavour  to  have  the  doubt  resolved, 
by  referring  to  parallel  passages  (if  there  be  any  such)  which 
treat  of  the  same  subject  in  more  explicit  terms,  or  at  greater 
length.  The  really  doubtful  cases,  in  which  we  can  avail  our 
selves  of  this  help,  may  not,  perhaps,  be  very  numerous;  but 
they  are  still  to  be  found.  Thus,  in  the  first  beatitude  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  which  the  simple  designation 
poor  occurs,  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  " Blessed  are  ye  poor:" 
this  has  its  fuller  explanation  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  where 
we  read,  "Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit:" — plainly  indicating 
that,  if  literal  poverty  is  not  excluded,  respect  is  mainly  had 
to  the  spiritual  frame.  In  like  manner  the  passage  in  the 
same  sermon,  respecting  bringing  a  gift  to  the  altar,  in  so  far 
as  regards  its  bearing  on  the  Christian  Church,  has  its  mean 
ing  clearly  determined  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  which  declare  earthly  al 
tars,  and  the  offerings  proper  to  them,  to  have  no  longer  any 
place  in  the  Church  of  God.  And  the  word  of  Jesus,  "De 
stroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up  again," 
though  spoken  with  apparent  literality,  was  afterwards  found, 
when  the  progress  of  events  and  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit 
laid  open  its  meaning,  to  have  had  a  figurative  import.  It 
referred,  not  to  the  building  usually  designated  the  temple, 
but  to  the  Lord's  body,  although  this  also  was  in  reality  a 
temple,  which  is  but  another  name  for  the  dwelling-place  of 
Deity ;  nay,  was  such  in  a  sense  more  strictly  appropriate 
than  could  be  affirmed  of  the  other. 


164         PROPER  METHOD  OP  INTERPRETING 

Now,  if  we  apply  these  simple  and  just  principles  of  inter 
pretation  to  the  passage  in  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  iii.  13,)  we  can 
have  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  result  that  ought  to  be 
arrived  at.  The  declaration  there  made  is,  that  "the  day," 
viz.,  of  coming  trial,  "  shall  be  revealed  by  fire,  and  the  fire 
shall  try  every  man's  work,  of  what  sort  it  is."  What  is  the 
nature  of  the  work  to  be  tried?  That  is  naturally  our  first 
question.  Is  it  of  a  moral,  or  simply  of  an  external  and 
earthly  kind?  The  only  work  spoken  of  in  the  context  is 
that  which  concerns  the  foundation  and  progress  of  Christ's 
Church,  and  man's  relation  to  it — work,  therefore,  in  a  strictly 
moral  sense ;  and  so,  by  our  first  principle,  the  fire  that  is  to 
try  it  must  be  moral  too.  For  how  incongruous  were  it  to 
couple  a  corporeal  fire  with  a  spiritual  service,  as  the  means 
of  determining  its  real  character?  And  if  in  accordance  with 
our  last  principle,  we  have  recourse  to  other  passages,  which 
speak  of  the  day  of  future  trial  and  final  decision,  we  find 
statements,  indeed,  to  the  effect  that  the  Lord  will  be  revealed 
in  flaming  fire,  or,  as  it  again  is,  in  the  clouds  of  heaven;  but  as 
to  what  shall  really  fix  the  character  and  the  award  of  each 
man's  work  in  the  Lord,  we  are  left  in  no  room  to  doubt  that  it 
shall  be  His  own  searching  judgment : — this  it  is  that  shall  bring 
all  clearly  to  light,  and  give  to  every  one  according  to  his  de 
sert.  The  result,  therefore,  is  obvious;  the  fire  spoken  of, 
and  spoken  of  simply  in  respect  to  its  property  as  an  instru 
ment  of  trial,  must  be  understood  tropically  of  what,  in  spiri 
tual  things,  has  the  like  property. 

Let  us  also  try,  in  the  same  way,  what  our  Lord  says  about 
eating  His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood.  The  Romanists 
contend  that  the  expressions  must  be  taken  literally,  even  as 
recorded  in  John  vi.  53,  long  before  the  sacrament  of  the  Sup 
per  was  instituted.  Ernesti,  who  was  a  Lutheran,  admits  it 
must  be  understood  tropically  there;  but  he  maintains  that 
the  words  at  the  institution  of  the  Supper  must  be  taken  lite 
rally.  When  treating  of  the  interpretation  of  tropical  lan 
guage,  in  his  Institutes  of  Biblical  Interpretation,  he  states 
that,  as  at  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  in  the  formula  of  baptism,  the 
word  baptize  is  to  be  taken  literally,  so  the  words  at  the  in- 


TROPICAL  PASSAGES.  165 

stitution  of  the  Supper,  about  eating  and  drinking  must  be 
taken  literally.  And  he  refers  to  what  he  regards  as  a  kind 
of  parallel  passage,  Heb.  ix.  20,  where  the  words  of  Moses 
are  quoted,  "This  is  the  blood  of  the  covenant  which  God 
hath  enjoined  unto  you,"  and  draws  the  conclusion  that,  as  in 
this  case  the  blood  of  the  covenant  must  be  literally  understood, 
so  our  Lord  must  have  meant  His  blood  to  be  understood  in 
the  same  manner.  Nor  could  this  expression,  he  adds,  con 
vey  any  other  than  its  proper  sense  to  the  minds  of  the  dis 
ciples,  who  were  accustomed  to  take  up  our  Lord's  declara 
tions  in  their  proper  or  literal  sense.  No  doubt  they  were  ac 
customed  to  do  this;  greatly  too  much  accustomed:  it  was 
their  failing  and  their  error  to  be  so.  Hence  our  Lord  had 
once  and  again  to  complain  of  their  inaptitude  to  perceive  the 
real  import  of  His  words;  and  specially  in  regard  to  this  very 
form  of  expression,  when,  on  one  occasion,  He  spoke  of  having 
Himself  bread  to  eat  that  others  knew  not  of,  and  on  another, 
cautioned  His  disciples  to  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Phari 
sees;  so  far  was  He  from  justifying  them  for  understanding 
His  words  literally  (as  He  discovered  they  did,)  that  He  re 
proved  them  on  that  very  account  for  their  dulness  of  appre 
hension.  If  Ernesti's  reasoning  were  sound,  and  the  use  he 
makes  of  the  words  of  Moses  in  Hebrews  were  valid,  the  na 
tural  conclusion  would  be,  not  only  that  the  corporeal  pre 
sence  of  Christ  in  the  Supper  should  be  maintained,  but  also 
that  the  whole  legal  economy  should  remain  in  force — the  altar 
of  sacrifice,  with  the  blood  of  slain  victims,  the  distinction  of 
Jew  and  Gentile,  the  continued  teaching  of  the  scribes  in  Mo 
ses'  seat,  etc. :  for  these  are  all  distinctly  mentioned  by  Christ, 
and,  in  all  probability,  were  at  first  understood  in  the  most  li 
teral  sense  by  the  disciples. 

We  must  plainly  have  other  rules  for  our  direction  in  such 
a  case.  It  is  surely  one  thing  to  say,  that-  Christ  literally  ra 
tified  the  covenant  with  His  own  blood,  and  a  very  different 
thing,  that  bread  and  wine  became  His  blood,  and  as  such 
were  to  be  eaten  and  drunk,  at  a  feast  instituted  in  commemo 
ration  of  His  act  in  ratifying  the  covenant.  Indeed,  it  is  only 
by  a  sort  of  figure  that  we  can  speak  even  of  the  covenant 


166  PROPER  METHOD  OF  INTERPRETING 

being  ratified  by  His  blood — a  figure  derived  from  the  ancient 
sacrifices;  for,  in  reality,  it  was  the  simple  death  of  Christ, 
the  free  surrender  of  His  soul  through  the  pains  of  dissolution 
to  the  Father,  which,  in  His  case,  established  the  covenant; 
and  would  equally  have  done  so,  though  not  a  drop  of  blood 
had  been  outwardly  shed.  There  is  a  failure,  therefore,  as  to 
formal  resemblance  at  the  very  outset,  in  the  actions  that  are 
brought  into  comparison.  And  when  we  come  to  the  partici 
pation  spoken  of,  there  is  no  resemblance  whatever.  Even 
Augustine,  with  all  his  leanings  toward  ritualism,  and  his 
mystic  notions  on  the  virtue  of  the  Sacraments,  saw  that  the 
literal  in  its  strict  sense  could  not  stand.  On  the  passage  in 
St.  John's  Gospel,  about  eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the 
blood  of  Christ,  he  says,  "It  appears  to  order  a  wicked  and 
abominable  action ;  it  is,  therefore,  a  figure,  teaching  that  we 
must  communicate  with  our  Lord's  passion,  and  have  it  sweetly 
and  profitably  laid  up  in  our  memory,  that  His  flesh  was  cru 
cified  and  wounded  for  us  (prgecipiens  passioni  dominions  com- 
rnunicandum,  et  suaviter  atque  utiliter  recondendum  in  me- 
moria  quod  pro  nobis  caro  ejus  crucifixa  et  vulnerata  sit.1)" 
Whether  we  look  to  this  passage,  or  to  the  words,  "This  is 
My  body  broken  for  you,"  and  "This  cup  is  the  New  Cove 
nant  in  My  blood,  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins,  drink  ye  of 
it,"  the  literal  interpretation  violates  every  one  of  the  three 
leading  principles,  which  we  have  laid  down  as  applicable  to 
such  cases.  It  is  against  the  first  principle ;  for  what  our 
Lord  was  speaking  of  in  the  one  passage,  and  the  privilege 
He  was  establishing  in  the  other,  was  a  joint  participation  with 
Himself  as  the  Redeemer  of  men.  But  this  is  a  thing  in  its 
very  nature  spiritual;  and  a  carnal  amalgamation  with  His 
bodily  parts — were  such  a  thing  possible — could  be  of  no  be 
nefit:  in  that  respect,  as  our  Lord  Himself  testified,  "The 
flesh  profiteth  nothing."  Not  oneness  of  outward  standing  or 
corporeal  substance,  but  unity  of  soul,  identity  of  spiritual  life — 
this  is  what  alone  avails  in  such  a  matter.  Then,  the  lite 
ral  interpretation  is  against  our  second  principle  of  interpre 
tation,  inasmuch  as  it  ascribes  an  action  to  Christians,  nay 
1  De  Doc.  Christiana,  iii.  10. 


TROPICAL  PASSAGES.  107 

imposes  as  the  highest  and  most  sacred  duty  an  action,  which 
is  abhorrent  to  the  common  instincts  of  humanity — an  action 
which  has  no  parallel  in  real  life,  except  among  the  lowest 
types  of  human  nature — the  most  untutored  savages.  These 
alone  among  mankind  are  known,  and  even  these  only  in  ex 
treme  cases,  to  eat  human  flesh  and  drink  human  blood;  and 
it  is  utterly  inconceivable,  that  the -most  solemn  rite  of  Chris 
tianity  should  have  been  designed  to  be  formally  the  same 
with  the  most  unnatural  and  savage  practice  which  exists  in 
the  world.  And,  finally,  the  parallel  passages  may  also  be 
said  to  be  against  it;  for  though  from  the  singularity  of  the 
case,  as  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  Supper,  we  cannot  appeal  to 
any  passages  absolutely  parallel,  yet  passages  substantially 
parallel  are  not  wanting — passages  in  which  Christ  is  repre 
sented  as  identifying  Himself  with  an  external  object,  much 
as  He  does  with  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Sacrament: — Such 
as,  "I  am  the  door,"  "I  am  the  vine,"  "The  Church  which 
is  His  body,"  "And  that  Rock  was  Christ."  We  have  also 
passages,  in  which  the  bread  of  this  ordinance,  after  consecra 
tion,  the  bread  as  actually  partaken  by  the  communicants,  is 
still  designated  bread,  and  not  flesh; — as  when  the  apostle 
says,  in  1  Cor.  x.  16,  17,  "The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?  For,  we  being 
many  are  one  bread,  and  one  body;  for  we  are  all  partakers 
of  that  one  bread  " — from  which  one  might  as  well  argue,  that 
believers  are  turned  into  bread,  as  from  the  words  in  Matthew, 
that  the  bread  is  turned  into  flesh.  And  in  Acts,  ch.  ii.  42, 
xx.  7,  11,  we  have  the  expression,  "breaking  of  bread,"  used 
as  a  common  phrase  to  denote  the  celebration  of  the  Supper, 
manifestly  implying,  that  the  participation  of  bread,  and  not 
what  could  be  termed  flesh,  constituted  the  formal  act  in  this 
part  of  the  Communion. 

We  say  nothing  of  the  doctrinal  positions  based  upon  the 
literal  sense,  but  contemplate  the  matter  in  a  simply  exegeti- 
cal  point  of  view.  Apart  altogether  from  the  doctrinal  con 
sequences  and  results,  the  close  and  comparative  examination 
of  the  words  leads  to  the  adoption  of  the  tropical,  in  contra 
distinction  to  the  literal  import. 


168  PROPER  METHOD  OF  INTERPRETING 

II.  We  turn  now  to  what  forms  naturally  the  second  sub 
ject  of  consideration  in  this  branch  of  inquiry,  viz.,  the  proper 
mode  of  treating  the  tropical  or  figurative  portions  of  Scrip 
ture.  This  necessarily  varies  to  a  considerable  extent,  as  does 
also  the  use  of  figure  in  Scripture : — so  that  uniform  rules,  ap 
plicable  to  all  cases  of  figurative  language,  cannot  possibly  be 
given.  The  field  must  be  surveyed  in  successive  portions. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  there  are  in  Scripture,  as  in  other 
compositions,  words  and  phrases,  which  are  really  used  in  a 
figurative  manner,  but  in  which  the  figurative  has  become  so 
common,  that  it  has  ceased  to  be  regarded  as  figurative.     Ex 
amples  of  this  in  ordinary  language  are  not  far  to  seek.     Ex 
pression^  for  example,  which  in  its  original  sense  means  a 
squeezing  out,  but  is  now  almost  invariably  appropriated  to 
the  specific  act  of  pressure  outwards,  which  takes  place  in 
speech,  when  the  thought  conceived  in  the  mind  is  put  forth 
into  intelligible  words — ardour,  which  is  primarily  burning 
or  heat,  but  by  usage  has  come  to  be  confined  to  states  of 
mind — reflect,  ruminate,  and  many  others  of  which  what  was 
once  the  tropical,  has  now  come  to  be  the  ordinary  usage. 
Examples  of  the  same  description  are  found  in  Scripture,  in 
such  words  as  edify  ("edify  one  another  in  love,")  train-up 
(originally  draw-up,  but  now  usually  educate,  instruct,  rear,) 
synagogue,  church:  in  all  which  the  secondary  or  tropical 
meaning  is  the  current  one;  and  if  occasionally  a  reference 
may  with  advantage  be  made  to  the  primary  sense,  generally 
it  is  best  to  treat  them  as  no  longer  tropical,  but  to  regard  the 
common  acceptation  as  the  only  one  that  has  any  particular 
claim  for  notice. 

2.  A  second  point  to  be  noted  is,  that  there  is  often  a  com 
plex  tropical  meaning  in  the  words  and  phrases  of  Scripture 
(as  of  language  generally) — one  tropical  meaning,  by  some 
addition  or  subtraction  in  respect  to  the  principal  idea,  giving 
rise  to  another,  and  that,  perhaps,  still  to  another.     So  that 
there  is  sometimes  trope  upon  trope;  and  it  is  of  importance, 
not  only  to  have  a  general  acquaintance  with  the  whole,  so  as 
to  be  able  the  more  readily  to  choose  the  proper  one  for  the 
occasion,  but  also  to  understand  something  of  their  successive 


TROPICAL  PASSAGES.  169 

growth — to  be  able  to  trace,  in  a  manner,  their  genealogy,  so 
as  fitly  and  intelligently  to  connect  one  with  another.  This 
can  now,  for  the  most  part,  be  done  with  comparative  ease, 
and  usually  requires  nothing  more  than  the  careful  use  of  the 
grammar  and  the  dictionary;  for  of  late  years  the  progress  of 
philological  study  has  been  such  as  to  determine  pretty  accu 
rately  almost  all  the  primary  and  derived  meanings  of  the 
words  in  New  Testament  Scripture,  with  their  relative  order 
and  gradation.  As  an  example  of  the  accumulation  of  tropes 
in  the  meaning  of  some  words,  we  may  refer  to  Rev.  iii.  12, 
"Him  that  overcorneth  will  I  make  a  pillar  in  the  temple  of 
my  God,"  in  which  not  the  nearer,  but  a  more  remote  tropical 
meaning  is  given  to  pillar.  The  literal  is  that  of  a  strong 
support  to  a  material  building;  whence  comes  the  more  imme 
diate  tropical  meaning,  of  some  kind  of  like  support  in  the 
sphere  of  moral  and  spiritual  things;  but  a  further  tropical 
meaning  also  arises,  suggested  by  the  thought  of  pillars  being 
usually  the  strongest  and  most  securely  fixed  parts  of  the 
building — the  meaning  of  a  stable  and  abiding  position.  This 
is  the  idea  intended  to  be  conveyed  in  the  passage  referred 
to;  and  hence  it  is  added,  as  what  naturally  arises  from  the 
subject  of  the  promise  having  the  position  of  a  pillar  assigned 
him,  that  "he  shall  go  no  more  out" — his  place  in  the  region 
of  bliss  and  glory  shall  be  one  of  eternal  continuance. — \Ye 
may  point  for  another  example  to  Mat.  xxiii.  14,  where  our 
Lord  says  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  "Ye  devour  widows' 
houses" — r«c  otxlaz  raw  ffipajv,  evidently  meaning  the  goods 
or  substance  of  those  widows.  The  first  transition  from  the 
natural  to  the  figurative  import  consists  in  taking  house,  by 
metonymy,  for  family — what  contains  for  the  principal  ob 
jects  contained  in  it — and  then,  by  a  further  limitation,  putting 
the  means  of  support,  belonging  to  the  house  or  family,  for 
this  itself — on  the  implied  ground,  that  the  one  as  to  sub 
stantial  existence  is  identified  with  the  other,  and  that  he  who 
lays  his  hand  on  the  means  of  sustenance  to  a  house  virtually 
lays  his  hand  on  the  house  itself.  This  second  trope,  there 
fore,  growing  out  of  the  first,  is  quite  natural;  and  we  can 
easily  see,  how  much,  by  the  throwing  together  of  the  several 
15 


170  PROPER  METHOD  OF  INTERPRETING 

things  which  make  up  this  last  idea,  the  language  of  our  Lord 
gains  in  strength  and  vivacity.  It  leads  us  to  think,  not  merely 
of  the  avaricious  arid  fraudulent  appropriation  of  some  earthly 
goods,  but  of  the  result  also  flowing  from  such  conduct — the 
actual  absorption  of  a  whole  house,  in  order  to  gratify  a  base 
and  selfish  appetite. 

3.  As  a  third  direction  for  the  proper  explanation  and 
management  of  the  tropical  language  of  Scripture — and  in 
deed,  the  principal  one — we  mention  this,  that  care  should  be 
taken  to  give  a  fair  and  natural,  as  opposed  to  a  far-fetched 
or  fanciful  turn  to  the  figure  employed.  We  do  so,  on  the 
ground,  that  figurative  language  is  essentially  of  a  popular 
caste,  and  is  founded  on  those  broader  and  more  obvious  re 
semblances,  which  do  not  need  to  be  searched  for,  but  are 
easily  recognised  and  generally  perceived.  When  the  apostle, 
for  example,  says,  "Let  not  the  sun  go  down  upon  your  wrath," 
the  reference  plainly  is,  to  the  time  that  should  be  set  to  the 
continued  indulgence  of  angry  feelings:  if  these  should  arise 
in  your  bosom,  let  them  not  be  harboured,  let  them  at  least 
expire  ere  the  day  closes,  on  which  they  have  arisen.  But 
see  how  oddly,  and  we  may  say  fantastically,  Thomas  Fuller 
draws  out  the  figure,  "St.  Paul  saith,  'Let  not  the  sun  go 
down  on  your  wrath,'  to  carry  news  to  the  antipodes  in  another 
world  of  thy  revengeful  nature.  Yet" — he  adds,  as  if  in 
tending  to  give  a  more  simple  view  of  the  matter,  "let  us  take 
the  apostle's  meaning  rather  than  his  words,  with  all  possible 
speed  to  depose  our  passion;  not  understanding  him  so  lite 
rally,  that  we  may  take  leave  to  be  angry  till  sunset;  then 
might  our  wrath  lengthen  with  the  days,  and  men  in  Green 
land,  where  day  lasts  above  a  quarter  of  a  year,  have  plentiful 
scope  of  revenge."  It  is  evident  on  a  moment's  consideration, 
that  such  turns  given  to  the  image  are  quite  fanciful:  they 
could  not  have  been  in  the  apostle's  mind,  nor  would  they 
readily  suggest  themselves  to  an  ordinary  reader  of  the  epistle ; 
and  they  serve  rather  to  amuse,  or  to  divert  attention  from 
the  right  point,  than  guide  it  into  the  proper  channel.  Even 
writers  much  less  fanciful  than  Fuller,  and  who  have  their 
imaginations  more  under  control,  often  err  in  this  direction. 


TROPICAL  PASSAGES.  171 

Thus  Leightcm,  in  his  first  sermon  on  Isa.  lx.  1 — as  a  whole 
an  admirable  discourse — when  referring  to  Canticles  vi.  10, 
where  it  is  said  of  the  spouse,  "She  is  fair  as  the  moon  and 
clear  as  the  sun,"  thus  explains,  "The  lesser  light  is  that  of 
sanctification,/az'r  as  the  moon;  that  of  justification  the  greater, 
by  which  she  is  clear  as  the  sun.  The  sun  is  perfectly  lumi 
nous,  but  the  moon  is  only  half  enlightened;  so  the  believer 
is  perfectly  justified,  but  sanctified  only  in  part;  his  one-half, 
his  flesh,  is  dark ;  and  as  the  partial  illumination  is  the  reason 
of  so  many  changes  in  the  moon,  to  which  changes  the  sun  is 
not  subject  at  all,  so  the  imperfection  of  a  Christian's  holi 
ness,  is  the  cause  of  so  many  waxings  and  wanings,  and  of 
the  great  inequality  of  his  performances,  whereas  in  the  mean 
while  his  justification  remains  constantly  like  itself."  Doc- 
trinally,  indeed,  this  is  perfectly  correct;  but  it  is  certainly 
not  in  the  passage,  on  which  it  is  founded.  The  reference 
there  to  the  two  objects  in  nature,  sun  and  moon,  is  merely 
to  these  as  they  strike  the  eye  of  a  spectator — therefore,  to 
the  intense  brightness  of  the  one,  and  to  the  milder  radiance 
of  the  other.  And  the  Church  is  compared  to  the  two  lumi 
naries  of  nature,  only  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  under  two 
similar,  though  slightly  diversified  aspects,  the  imposing  and 
attractive  appearance,  which  would  belong  to  her,  if  she  were 
in  her  normal  condition  of  light  and  purity. 

Take  still  another  example.  In  Matt.  x.  16,  our  Lord 
exhorts  His  disciples,  since  they  were  to  go  forth  like  sheep 
in  the  midst  of  wolves,  to  be  "wise  as  serpents" — on  which 
Augustine  remarks,  by  way  of  explanation,  "It  is  known  re 
specting  the  serpent,  that  it  presents  to  those  striking  it,  in 
stead  of  the  head,  the  whole  body;  and  this  shows,  in  con 
nexion  with  our  Lord's  word,  that  we  should  offer  to  those 
persecuting  us  our  body,  rather  than  our  head,  which  is  Christ, 
lest  the  Christian  faith  should  be,  as  it  were,  slain  in  us,  if 
by  sparing  our  body  we  should  disown  God."  "  Or,  again  " — 
taking  another  view  of  the  matter — "since  it  is  known,  that 
the  serpent,  when  compressed  by  the  straitness  of  its  den, 
casts  off  its  old  skin,  and  thereby,  it  is  said,  receives  new 
strength,  it  admonishes  us  to  imitate  that  same  cunning  of  the 


172         PROPER  METHOD  OF  INTERPRETING 

serpent,  and  put  off  the  old  man,  as  the  apostle  says,  that  we 
may  put  on  the  new,  and  put  it  off  through  straits,  entering 
(as  the  Lord  says)  through  the  strait  gate." l  I  need  scarcely 
say,  that  these  points  in  the  natural  history  of  the  serpent 
(if  they  were  real)  would  serve  little  to  illustrate  our  Lord's 
maxim,  in  the  connexion,  in  which  it  is  introduced;  since, 
plainly,  the  wisdom  He  recommends,  and  finds  imaged  in  the 
serpent,  is  wisdom,  not  to  enter  into  a  Christian  state,  nor  to 
brave  persecution  and  death,  when  entered,  rather  than  betray 
the  cause  of  Christ,  but  to  guide  one's  self  discreetly  and  pru 
dently  in  the  midst  of  danger,  so  as.  if  possible,  to  escape  the 
evil  threatened  by  it.  Indeed,  there  is  scarcely  any  thing 
known  in  the  natural  history  of  the  serpent-brood,  which  can 
be  of  service  in  illustrating  the  comparison ;  for  in  their  ex 
isting  condition  serpents  are  not  remarkable  for  wisdom,  in 
the  respect  nowr  mentioned,  and  possess  lower  instincts  and 
sagacity  than  many  other  irrational  creatures.  Yet  there  can 
be  no  doubt,  that  in  ancient  times  the  serpent  was  very  com 
monly  taken  as  a  symbol  of  wisdom,  wras  even  extensively 
worshipped  as  having  something  Divine  nbout  it.  But  this 
most  probably  sprung  out  of  the  tradition  respecting  its  pri 
meval  state,  as  the  wisest  among  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and 
the  part  it  was  in  consequence  employed  by  the  arch-deceiver 
to  play  in  the  fall  of  man.  Scripturally,  and  traditionally, 
the  serpent  was  peculiarly  associated  with  the  attribute  of 
wisdom — and  it  is  best  to  regard  our  Lord  as  simply  founding 
on  this  historical  belief,  and  the  deeply  significant  facts  con 
nected  with  it. 

The  danger  of  erring  in  the  manner  now  referred  to  is  not, 
perhaps,  so  great  in  our  day,  as  it  was  in  former  times,  when 
general  literature  abounded  with  laboured  ingenuities  and 
fanciful  conceits.  We  live  in  an  age,  which  gives  more  play 
to  the  unsophisticated  feelings  and  instincts  of  nature,  and 
which  is  less  disposed  to  seek  for  remote  and  curious  analogies. 
But  when  in  public  discourses  a  passage  is  selected,  which 
contains  a  similitude,  there  always  is  some  danger  of  pressing 
this,  in  some  respects,  too  far,  so  as  to  make  it  the  cover  of  a 
more  varied  or  lengthened  instruction  than  it  naturally  sug- 
1  De  Doc.  Christiana,  ii.  16. 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  173 

gests.  The  best  way  to  avoid  this,  is  to  cultivate  simplicity 
of  thought  and  style,  and  to  rest  in  the  conviction,  -which  ex 
perience  will  amply  justify,  that  two  or  three  points,  well 
chosen  and  vigorously  handled,  will  make  both  a  happier  and 
a  more  lasting  impression,  than  double  the  number,  if  not 
properly  grounded  in  the  text,  or  really  germane  to  the  sub 
ject. 


SECTION    NINTH. 

9 

THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST,  THEIR  PROPER  INTERPRETATION  AND 
TREATMENT. 

WE  have  considered  as  yet  only  the  commoner  and  briefer 
forms  of  figurative  language  in  the  New  Testament  writings — 
those  which  consist  of  single  expressions,  or  admit  of  being 
compressed  into  one  sentence.  But  a  very  considerable  and 
important  part  of  our  Lord's  discourses  exhibits  the  use  of 
figurative  representations  of  a  much  more  extended  and  di 
versified  kind.  We  refer  to  the  parables,  which,  both  on  ac 
count  of  their  intrinsic  importance,  and  the  peculiarities  con 
nected  with  such  a  mode  of  instruction,  demand  a  separate 
treatment. 

It  is  marked  by  the  Evangelists  as  a  sort  of  era  in  our  Lord's 
ministry,  when  He  began  to  teach  in  parables.  Each  of  the 
Synoptic  Evangelists  takes  notice  of  it,  and  connects  it  with 
specific  reasons.  The  period  itself  is  not  very  definitely  indi 
cated  ;  but  it  must  have  fallen,  if  not  actually  within  the  last 
year  of  His  ministry,  at  least  not  far  from  its  commencement; 
and  if  not  absolutely  the  whole,  certainly  by  much  the  greater 
number  of  His  parables  must  be  ascribed  to  the  last  year.  At 
the  same  time,  the  formal  employment  of  parabolic  teaching 
was  not  the  introduction  of  something  entirely  new.  Christ's 
manner  of  teaching  from  the  outset  partook  largely  of  figure ; 
and  some  even  of  His  earlier  recorded  utterances  were  parables 
of  a  shorter  kind;  for,  while  conveying  a  spiritual  lesson,  they 
bore  a  distinct  and  intelligible  meaning  also  in  the  natural 

15* 


174  THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST 

sense.  Of  this  description  are  some  parts  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount;  for  example,  ch.  v.  25,  "Agree  with  thine  adver 
sary  quickly,  whiles  thou  art  in  the  way  with  him ;  lest  at  any 
time  the  adversary  deliver  thee  to  the  judge,  and  the  judge 
deliver  thee  to  the  officer,  and  thou  be  cast  into  prison."  Here 
human  and  earthly  relations  alone  are  directly  mentioned, 
though  it  is  plain,  from  the  connexion  in  which  they  stand, 
and  the  whole  tenor  of  the  discourse,  that  they  are  employed 
merely  as  the  cover  of  a  higher  instruction.  Not  materially 
different  are  other  things  in  the  same  discourse,  and  especially 
the  concluding  verses,  in  which  the  two  classes  of  hearers — 
the  fruitful  and  fruitless — are  represented  under  the  similitude 
of  two  builders,  the  one  of  whom  erected  his  house  on  the  sand, 
and  the  other  on  the  solid  rock.  And  in  the  interval  between 
the  delivery  of  the  sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  the  commence 
ment  of  the  more  regular  system  of  parabolic  instruction,  we 
find  on  record  a  few  instances  of  similitude,  which  are  always 
ranked  with  the  parables — those,  namely,  of  the  old  garment 
and  the  new  patch,  of  the  new  wine  and  the  old  bottles  (Matt. 
ix.  16,  17,)  and  of  the  creditor  and  the  two  debtors  in  the 
house  of  Simon  (Luke  vii.  41,  42.)  So  that  the  parabolic  mode 
of  instruction,  to  a  certain  extent,  pervaded  the  ministry  of 
Jesus;  it  was  not  altogether  limited  to  any  one  period;  only, 
at  a  particular  stage,  somewhere  between  the  middle  and  the 
close,  He  commenced  a  more  regular,  frequent,  and  systematic 
use  of  the  parabolic  style.  And  to  this  later  period  it  is,  that 
the  parables  distinctively  so  called,  belong. 

I.  In  regard,  first  of  all,  to  the  reasons  which  may  have 
led  our  Lord  to  adopt  this  mode  of  instruction,  and  to  resort 
to  it  more  especially  in  the  concluding  stages  of  His  ministe 
rial  career,  a  variety  of  considerations  may  be  named  as  having 
each  had  a  certain  share  in  the  result. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  a  foundation  is  laid  for  it  in  the  nature 
of  things,  "in  the  harmony  that  exists,  and  that  is  uncon 
sciously  felt  by  all  men  between  the  natural  and  spiritual 
worlds,  so  that  analogies  from  the  first  are  felt  to  be  some 
thing  more  than  illustrations,  happily,  but  not  arbitrarily 


AND  THEIR  INTERPRETATION.  175 

chosen."1  Something  more — because  they  are  the  signs  and 
witnesses  of  that  happy  adjustment,  which  God  has  established 
between  the  external  and 'internal  worlds,  between  matter  and 
mind,  time  and  eternity;  according  to  which  the  things  that 
are  seen  are  in  many  respects  the  image  of  those  which  are 
not  seen,  and  nature-processes  are  at  once  designed  and  fitted 
to  be  emblems  of  the  operations  of  grace.  In  saying  this,  we 
do  not  need  with  some,  among  others  with  Dr.  Trench,  to  go 
to  the  extreme  of  holding,  that  everything  in  nature  has  been 
pre-ordained  expressly  to  shadow  forth  and  represent  Divine 
mysteries; — to  hold,  for  example,  that  "all  the  circumstances 
of  our  natural  birth  had  been  pre-ordained  to  bear  the  burden 
of  the  great  mystery  of  our  spiritual  birth,"  or  that  the  title 
of  King,  as  applied  to  Christ,  is  not  taken  from  the  kings  of 
the  earth,  but  "rather  that  He  has  lent  His  title  to  them." 
We  designate  this  an  extreme,  because  it  is  an  inverting  of 
the  natural  order  of  things  as  they  present  themselves  to  our 
minds,  and  is  also  at  variance  with  the  whole  current  of 
Scriptural  representation  on  the  subject.  There  the  natural 
ever  precedes  the  spiritual,  and  the  supernatural  bases  itself 
on  the  natural;  so  that  creation  does  not  anticipate  redemp 
tion,  but  redemption  pre-supposes  creation — pre-supposes  it  as 
in  itself  good  and  right;  and,  in  like  manner,  regeneration  pre 
supposes  generation,  and  elevates  it  to  a  higher  sphere.  All  we 
have  to  affirm  and  hold  is,  that  the  author  of  the  spiritual  king 
dom  (as  Tholuck,  on  John  xv.,  has  very  correctly  and  fitly  ex 
pressed  it)  "  is  also  the  author  of  the  natural  kingdom,  and  both 
kingdoms  develop  themselves  after  the  same  laws.  For  this 
reason,  the  similitudes  which  the  Redeemer  drew  from  the  king 
dom  of  nature,  are  not  mere  similitudes,  which  serve  the  pur 
pose  of  illustration,  but  are  internal  analogies;  and  nature  is 
a  witness  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  Hence  was  it  long  since 
announced  as  a  principle,  that '  whatever  exists  in  the  earthly, 
is  found  also  in  the  heavenly  kingdom.'  Were  it  not  so, 
those  similitudes  would  not  possess  that  power  of  conviction, 
which  they  carry  to  every  unsophisticated  mind." 

On  this  ground  alone,  then,  we  have  a  valid  ground  for  the 
1  Trench  on  the  Parables,  p.  13. 


176  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST 

employment  by  our  Lord  of  the  parabolic  method  of  instruc 
tion.  He  thereby  drew  the  attention  of  His  followers  in  every 
age  to  the  profound  and  intimate  connexion  that  subsists 
between  the  realms  of  nature  and  of  grace,  and  taught  them 
to  look  through  the  one  to  the  other.  It  was  the  more  im 
portant  that  lie  should  do  this,  as  the  kingdom  He  came  to 
introduce  stood  in  so  many  respects  opposed  to  the  world  as 
it  existed  in  His  time,  through  the  false  views,  grovelling  su 
perstitions,  and  horrid  crimes  under  which  it  groaned.  It  had 
become,  so  to  speak,  a  worn-out  world, — corrupt  nature  had 
spent  apparently  its  last  efforts  on  it  in  vain;  and  it  seemed 
as  if  there  was  little  more  to  be  learned  from  it,  or  to  be  done 
for  it.  But  our  Lord,  while  mainly  intent  upon  unfolding 
new  views  of  the  mind  and  purposes  of  Heaven,  at  the  same 
time  directed  a  new  look  into  the  secrets  and  principles  of  na 
ture.  By  means  especially  of  His  inimitable  parables,  He 
showed,  that  when  nature  was  consulted  aright,  it  spoke  one 
language  with  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  that  the  more  thoroughly 
it  is  understood,  the  more  complete  and  varied  will  be  found 
the  harmony  which  subsists  between  the  principles  of  its  con 
stitution  and  those  of  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom. 

2.  A  second  reason  very  naturally  suggests  itself  for  this 
method  of  instruction,  in  the  near  assimilation,  into  which  it 
brings  a  large  portion  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  with  the  acted 
lessons  of  His  life,  and  with  sacred  history  in  general.  That 
so  much  of  the  revelation  of  God  to  men  consists  of  the  facts 
of  history,  especially  of  biographical  facts  connected  with  the 
lives  of  God's  saints,  has  ever  been  regarded  by  wise  and 
thoughtful  men  as  a  striking  proof  of  its  adaptation  to  our  na 
tures,  which  so  much  more  readily  imbibe  clear  and  lasting 
impressions  in  this  way,  than  by  set  and  formal  instructions. 
And  not  only  so,  but  by  this  means  they  can  be  taught  much 
more  in  a  brief  compass  than  it  is  possible  otherwise  to  impart 
to  them.  For,  in  a  life,  especially  in  such  lives  as  are  recorded 
in  the  Word  of  God,  there  is  a  great  variety  and  fulness  of 
instruction,  admitting  of  a  manifold  applicability  to  the  di 
versified  fortunes  and  conditions  of  men.  There  is  this,  pre 
eminently,  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  with  its  wondrous  details  of 


AND  THEIR  INTERPRETATION.  177 

doing  and  suffering,  and  the  unfathomable  depths  of  wisdom 
and  love,  which  it  was  ever  exhibiting — alike  incomparable  in 
itself,  and  in  the  artless,  engaging  manner,  in  which  it  is  pre 
sented  to  our  view  by  the  Evangelists.  The  parables  of  Jesus, 
from  the  historical  element  in  them,  and  the  attractive  form 
in  which  it  appears,  possess  much  of  the  same  excellence. 
They  are  based,  if  not  on  what  has  actually  occurred  in  the 
world  of  realities,  at  least  on  what  may  have  occurred  there, 
and  often  in  effect  has  done  so.  Ideal  histories  they  are,  yet 
derived  as  to  all  their  leading  features  from  the  actual,  and 
these  grouped  together,  and  portrayed  with  the  simplicity  of 
nature  itself.  They  are  hence,  in  a  brief  compass,  copious 
treasures  of  Divine  wisdom,  from  which  lessons,  new  and  old, 
may  be  continually  drawn.  And  however  much  we  may  strive 
to  exhibit  the  several  aspects  of  the  Divine  kingdom,  we  shall 
still  find,  that  we  can  present  nothing  under  any  of  them  so 
complete,  as  is  contained  in  some  one  of  the  parables,  which 
is  devoted  to  its  illustration. 

3.  A  third  reason  for  our  Lord's  teaching  in  parables  may 
be  found  in  the  opportunity  it  afforded  of  presenting  more 
truth  to  the  minds  of  His  disciples  than,  from  their  continued 
dulness  and  carnality  of  spirit,  could  otherwise  have  been 
communicated  to  them.  Steeped  in  prejudice,  and,  even  when 
holding  the  truth  in  substance,  mingling  with  it  such  partial, 
or  mistaken  apprehensions,  they  could  with  difficulty  be  got 
to  receive  with  intelligence  some  of  Christ's  plainest  revela 
tions;  and,  at  last,  He  was  obliged  to  stay  His  hand  in  respect 
to  the  more  direct  and  open  communications  of  his  mind,  as 
He  found  the  disciples  were  not  able  to  bear,  or  to  profit  by 
it.  But,  by  teaching  in  parables,  and  presenting  the  concerns 
of  His  kingdom  under  the  image  of  familiar  objects  and  earthly 
relations,  He  laid  the  ground-work  of  a  most  comprehensive 
and  varied  instruction.  Many  aspects  of  the  kingdom  were 
thus  unfolded  to  them  in  a  form  they  could  easily  grasp  and 
distinctly  comprehend — though,  for  the  time,  all  remained, 
like  the  symbols  of  the  Old  Testament  worship,  very  much 
as  a  dark  and  unintelligible  cipher  to  their  view.  That  ci 
pher,  however,  became  lighted  up  with  meaning  when  the 


178  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST 

personal  work  of  Christ  was  finished,  and  the  Spirit  descended 
with  power  to  make  application  of  its  blessings,  and  the  minds 
of  the  disciples  were  enabled  to  grasp  the  higher  as  well  as 
the  lower  scheme  of  doctrine  exhibited  in  the  representation. 
Through  the  earthly  form  they  could  now  descry  the  spiritual 
reality ;  and  the  advantage  they  derived  from  the  types,  when 
rightly  understood,  they  also  derived,  and  in  a  still  higher 
degree,  from  the  parables. 

4.  Once  more,  another  reason,  and,  indeed,  the  one  that 
is  most  distinctly  announced  in  the  Gospels,  for  our  Lord 
teaching  so  much  in  the  latter  part  of  His  ministry  in  parable, 
was  the  judicial  treatment  involved  in  it — the  practical  rebuke 
it  administered  to  the  people  generally,  on  account  of  their 
failure  to  receive  the  truth  when  presented  in  its  simple  and 
more  direct  form.  After  the  parable  of  the  sower  and  some 
others  had  been  delivered,  the  disciples  asked  Jesus,  "Why 
speakest  Thou  to  them  in  parables?"  And  the  answer  pointed 
chiefly  to  the  measure  of  darkness  connected  with  them :  "  Unto 
you  it  is  given  (said  He)  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom : 
but  to  them  it  is  not  given ;  for  whosoever  hath,  to  him  shall 
be  given,  and  he  shall  have  more  abundance;  but  whosoever 
hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  which  he 
hath.  Therefore" — He  added,  with  reference  to  the  people, 
who  belonged  to  the  latter  class,  the  persons  who  had  not,  as 
the  disciples  did  to  the  former — "Therefore  speak  I  to  them 
in  parables;  because  they  seeing,  see  not;  hearing,  they  hear 
not,  neither  understand."  The  import  of  the  statement  is, 
that  the  disciples,  having  to  a  certain  extent  used  the  privilege 
they  possessed — having  improved  the  talents  committed  to 
them — were  to  be  intrusted  with  more ;  while  the  body  of  the 
people,  having  failed  to  make  a  similar  use  of  their  opportu 
nities — remaining  destitute  of  Divine  knowledge,  notwith 
standing  all  that  had  been  taught  them — were  to  have  their 
means  of  knowing  abridged,  were  to  be  placed  under  a  more 
indirect  and  veiled  method  of  instruction.  This  mode  of  dealing 
was  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  whole  nature  and  tenden 
cy  of  the  work  of  Christ  in  its  relation  to  the  hearts  of  men, 
— which  always  carried  along  with  it  two  ends,  the  one  dis- 


AND  THEIR  INTERPRETATION.  179 

playing  the  severity,  and  the  other  the  goodness  of  God. 
From  the  first  He  was  "set  for  the  fall,"  as  well  as  "the 
rising  again,"  of  many  in  Israel — for  the  enlightenment  and 
salvation  first,  but,  if  that  failed,  then  for  the  growing  hard 
ness  and  aggravated  guilt  of  the  people. 

In  the  parable,  viewed  as  a  mode  of  instruction,  there  was 
necessarily  a  veiling  of  the  truth  for  such  as  neither  sought, 
nor  obtained  through  private  explanations,  the  key  to  its 
spiritual  bearing.  And  in  that  veiling  there  was  an  act  of 
judgment  for  previous  indifference  and  contrariety  to  the  mani 
festation  of  the  truth.  Because  the  people  had  not  received 
it  in  love,  when  more  openly  presented  to  them,  it  now  became 
wrapt  in  an  obscurer  guise,  and  was  placed  at  a  greater  dis 
tance  from  their  view.  Even  this,  had  it  been  rightly  viewed, 
would  have  wrought  beneficially  upon  their  minds.  For,  had 
they  not  wilfully  blinded  their  eyes  and  hardened  their  hearts, 
they  would  have  seen  in  such  a  darkening  of  the  Divine  coun 
sel  something  fitted  to  rouse  and  startle  them;  it  would  have 
fallen  on  their  ear  as  the  warning-note  of  coming  retribution; 
and,  perceiving  that  the  Lord  was  showing  Himself  froward  to 
the  froward,  they  would  have  fled  to  the  arms  of  mercy  before 
severer  judgment  overtook  them.  This,  undoubtedly,  was 
what  our  Lord  designed  as  the  effect  that  should  have  been 
produced  upon  -them  by  the  change  He  adopted  in  His  man 
ner  of  teaching.  And  in  certain  cases  it  may  have  done  so; 
but,  with  the  greater  part,  the  evil  only  proceeded  from  one 
stage  to  another,  and,  before  leaving  for  the  last  time  the 
cities  in  which  most  of  His  mighty  works  had  been  done,  and 
His  discourses  delivered,  He  uttered  against  them  those  me 
morable  woes  which  announced  their  approaching  doom. 

Such  appear  to  have  been  the  chief  considerations  which  in 
duced  our  Lord  in  the  later  period  of  His  ministry,  to  use  so 
commonly  the  parabolic  mode  of  instruction.  It  is  not  so 
properly  an  additional  reason,  as  a  particular  mode  of  repre 
senting  those  that  have  been  specified,  when  the  Evangelist 
Matthew  says  of  Christ's  speaking  to  the  people  in  parables, 
"that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet, 
saying,  I  will  open  my  mouth  in  parables,  I  will  utter  things 


180  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST 

which  have  been  kept  secret  from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 
What  is  here  regarded  as  a  prophecy,  is  a  somewhat  general 
declaration  respecting  the  form  of  utterances  common  to  the 
more  special  messengers  of  Heaven.  With  certain  character 
istic  differences,  there  still  was  something  proper  to  them  all 
in  this  respect,  more  particularly  in  those  communications 
which  had  a  prospective  reference  to  the  kingdom  of  God; 
there  was  a  certain  amount  of  figurative  and  analogical  dis 
course  required  to  their  fulfilling  aright  their  prophetic  office. 
And  it  was  unavoidable,  that  the  greatest  messenger  and  pro 
phet  of  all  should  also  exhibit  this  mark  of  the  prophetic  call 
ing.  It  behooved  to  appear  in  some  form;  but  the  specific 
form  it  actually  assumed  in  his  hands  was  determined  by  the 
several  considerations  already  mentioned.  So  that  the  allu 
sion  of  the  Evangelist  to  the  passage  in  the  forty-ninth  Psalm, 
does  not  indicate  any  thing  new  or  different  upon  the  subject, 
but  is  comprehensive  of  all  the  considerations,  which  actually 
weighed  with  our  Lord,  and  induced  Him  to  adopt  the  para 
bolic  style. 

II.  We  proceed  now  to  the  second  leading  point  of  inquiry 
respecting  the  parables  of  Jesus,  viz.,  the  proper  mode  of  in 
terpreting  and  handling  them.  We  are  not  left  here  entirely 
to  our  own  resources;  for,  on  two  occasions,  very  near  each 
other,  the  disciples  asked  our  Lord  for  an  explanation  of  the 
parables  He  had  delivered,  and  we  have,  in  consequence,  His 
interpretation  of  two  of  them.  We  are,  doubtless,  entitled  to 
regard  these  examples  of  Divine  exposition  as  specimens  of 
the  kind  of  exposition  generally,  that  should  be  employed  upon 
the  parables,  and  the  main  features  in  them  should  be  steadily 
kept  in  view  by  all  interpreters. 

1.  The  first  thing,  however,  that  requires  to  be  attended  to 
is  one  not  noticed  in  our  Lord's  explanations,  but  taken  for 
granted  there  as  perfectly  understood,  viz.  the  correct  read 
ing  of  the  parabolical  representation  itself,  which  forms  the 
ground  and  cover  of  the  spiritual  instruction.  We  must  ob 
tain  a  clear  understanding,  and  be  able  to  give  an  accurate 
exposition  of  the  meaning  of  the  words,  and  the  natural  or 


AND  THEIR  INTERPRETATION.  181 

historical  allusions  which  they  may  contain.  And  the  image 
or  delineation,  as  a  whole,  in  its  merely  natural  aspect  and 
relations,  should  be  set  forth  in  its  proper  fulness  and  sim 
plicity,  preparatory  to  our  drawing  from  it  the  instruction  it 
is  fitted  to  convey.  For  the  most  part,  this  is  not  difficult — 
if  only  a  moderate  amount  of  scholarship  is  possessed,  and 
such  a  cast  of  mind  as  is  capable  of  taking  up  a  fair  impres 
sion,  and  giving  forth  a  distinct  representation  of  what  is  nar 
rated: — not  difficult,  because  usually  the  language  in  these 
portions  of  Scripture  is  remarkable  for  simplicity,  and  the 
parabolic  narratives  relate  to  the  more  familiar  objects  in  na 
ture  and  history.  In  a  few  cases  only  is  some  difficulty  ex 
perienced.  As  an  example  of  one  in  the  language,  we  may 
point  to  the  parable  of  the  wheat  and  the  tares — as  it  is  com 
monly  termed.  The  difficulty  lies  here  in  determining  exactly 
what  is  meant  by  £/£avra,  the  seed  which  the  enemy  scattered 
among  the  wheat,  and  which,  it  appears,  did  not  attract  any 
notice  or  excite  any  uneasiness,  till  the  full  blade  had  been 
put  forth,  and  the  ear  had  been  formed.  The  tares,  the  an 
cient  vicia,  by  which  our  translators  have  rendered  the  word, 
plainly  do  not  altogether  accord  with  the  description;  both 
because  they  are  so  different  in  form  and  appearance  from 
wheat,  that  they  should  be  detected  the  moment  they  rose 
above  ground,  and  also  because  they  are  not  of  a  noxious  na 
ture,  but  are  grown  for  purposes  of  nourishment.  Our  Lord, 
there  can  be  little  doubt,  referred  to  some  weed  with  which 
His  hearers  were  familiarly  acquainted,  and  which  was  wont 
to  be  found  in  the  corn-fields  of  Syria.  The  term  zizania  is, 
therefore,  in  all  probability  a  Syrian  word;  and,  accordingly, 
it  never  occurs  in  any  Greek  or  Latin  author,  except  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers,  where  they  refer  to  this  parable. 
They  explained  it  differently,  and  if  we  except  Jerome,  none 
of  them  quite  correctly.  But  there  is  a  plant,  which  the  Rab 
bins  call  zunim,  and  the  Arabs  of  the  present  day  zulzan 
(neither  of  them  very  far  from  the  zizania  of  Scripture,)  which 
abounds  in  the  corn-fields  of  Syria — a  plant,  which  is  at  first 
very  like  wheat  in  appearance,  which  belongs  to  the  same 
family,  and  which,  when  analyzed,  contains  nearly  the  same 
16 


182  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST 

ingredients,  yet  so  different  in  its  effects  upon  the  human  frame, 
that  when  the  seeds  remain  mixed  with  the  wheat,  the  flour 
thus  produced  always  occasions  dizziness  and  other  injurious 
effects.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  that  this  is  really  the  plant 
referred  to.  The  only  question  (but  one  that  can  scarcely  be 
said  to  affect  the  exposition  of  the  parable)  is,  whether  it  is  a 
distinct  plant,  or  a  sort  of  degenerate  wheat — afterwheat  as 
it  is  sometimes  called.  The  Rabbinical  doctors  held  it  to  be 
the  latter:  they  said,  as  quoted  by  Lightfoot,  "Wheat  and 
zunim  are  not  seeds  of  different  kinds,"  but  "zunim  is  a  kind 
of  wheat,  which  is  changed  in  the  earth,  both  as  to  its  form 
and  as  to  its  nature."  The  ancient  scholiast,  too,  writes  on 
Virgil's  infelix  lolium,  "Triticum  et  hordeum  in  lolium  mu- 
tantur."  This,  certainly,  maybe  reckoned  doubtful;  for  the 
Rabbis  and  scholiasts  were  no  great  naturalists ;  and  it  is  more 
common  now  to  regard  the  zizanion  as  a  separate  plant,  the 
bearded  darnel,  lolium  temulentum,  of  naturalists.  At  all 
events,  this  plant,  and  not  our  tares,  is  what  must  be  under 
stood  by  the  term  in  the  parable — although  it  would  be  un 
wise  now  to  substitute  the  one  term  for  the  other  in  our  Bibles. 

In  the  figurative  representation  of  the  parable,  apart  from 
the  language  in  which  it  is  expressed,  there  is  seldom  any 
difficulty.  Only,  it  is  necessary  to  exercise  caution,  so  as  not 
to  extend  the  representation  too  far — carry  it  beyond  the 
bounds  within  which  it  was  intended  to  move.  Thus,  in  the 
parable  of  the  unjust  steward,  who  is  set  up  as  a  representa 
tive  in  the  worldly  sphere,  of  a  selfish  and  carnal  wisdom, 
choosing  skilfully  its  means  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  de 
sired  end,  we  must  take  care  to  confine  it  to  that  one  point, 
and  abstain  from  giving  it  a  more  general  direction.  There 
is  a  higher  wisdom  even  in  the  world  than  what  is  there  ex 
hibited,  a  wisdom  that  extends  to  the  choice  of  a  proper  end, 
as  well  as  to  the  employment  of  proper  means: — but  this  is 
not  brought  into  view  in  the  representation  of  the  parable. 

2.  The  next  thing  to  be  attended  to  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  parables,  is  the  main  theme  or  leading  idea,  which  they 
are  severally  intended  to  illustrate.  For,  there  always  is  what 
may  be  so  characterized — some  special  aspect  of  the  Divine 


AND  THEIR  INTERPRETATIONS.  183 

kingdom,  or  some  particular  line  of  duty  to  be  followed,  or  of 
danger  to  be  shunned,  which  the  parable  aims  at  exhibiting, 
and  to  which  all  its  imagery  is  subservient.  This,  as  Lisco 
has  justly  observed,  "is  the  centre  and  kernel  of  the  parable, 
and  till  it  has  been  discovered  and  accurately  determined,  we 
need  not  occupy  ourselves  with  the  individual  parts ;  since  these 
can  only  be  seen  in  their  true  light,  when  contemplated  from 
the  proper  centre.  We  may  compare,"  he  adds,  "the  whole 
parabolical  representation  to  a  circle,  the  centre  of  which  is 
the  Divine  truth  or  doctrine,  and  the  radii  are  the  several 
figurative  traits  in  the  narrative.  So  long  as  we  do  not  stand 
in  the  centre,  neither  does  the  circle  appear  in  an  entirely 
round  form,  nor  do  the  radii  seem  in  their  proper  order,  as 
all  tending  to  the  centre,  and  in  beautiful  uniformity: — this 
is  done,  when  the  eye  surveys  every  thing  from  the  centre. 
So  is  it  precisely  in  the  parable.  If  we  have  brought  clearly 
and  distinctly  out  its  central  point,  its  principal  idea,  then 
also  the  relative  position  and  right  meaning  of  its  several  parts 
become  manifest,  and  we  shall  only  dwell  upon  these  in  so  far 
as  the  main  theme  can  thereby  be  rendered  more  distinct." 

In  order  to  arrive  correctly  at  this  main  theme,  beside  an 
exact  and  careful  examination  of  the  parable  itself,  the  chief 
help  is  to  be  sought  in  the  connexion ;  and  if  this  is  closely 
considered,  and  the  light  it  furnishes  applied  to  the  illustration 
of  the  subject,  we  shall  rarely,  if  ever,  be  left  in  doubt  as  to 
the  principal  idea  or  doctrine  which  it  was  designed  to  unfold. 
A  few  of  the  earlier  parables,  all  those  recorded  in  the  13th 
ch.  of  Matthew,  and  which  were  delivered  about  the  same 
time,  having  been  uttered  one  after  another,  without  any 
thing  intervening  between  them  in  speech  or  action,  can  con 
sequently  derive  no  benefit  from  the  immediate  context.  But 
with  that  exception,  all  the  parables  in  the  Synoptic  evange 
lists  are  connected  with  occasions  of  an  historical  kind,  very 
often  also  are  preceded  by  a  direct  address;  and  then  the 
principle  couched  in  the  address,  or  which  the  historical  occa 
sion  served  to  bring  out,  is  resumed,  and  for  all  times  thrown 
into  the  form  of  an  attractive  and  striking  parable.  Possibly, 
the  parable  may  carry  the  instruction  somewhat  farther  than 


184  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST 

was  done  by  what  immediately  preceded,  but  it  will  be  found 
to  be  only  in  the  same  line.  Thus  the  beautiful  and  impress 
ive  parable  of  the  rich  fool,  recorded  in  the  12th  ch.  of  Luke, 
was  occasioned  by  a  person  rudely  interrupting  Jesus,  and  re 
questing  his  interference  with  that  person's  brother,  in  order 
to  obtain  a  division  of  the  inheritance.  Our  Lord  first  re 
pelled  the  intrusion  by  asking,  "Man,  who  made  Me  a  judge 
or  a  divider  over  you?"  and  then  delivered  to  His  followers 
the  appropriate  counsel,  "Take  heed,  and  beware  of  covetous- 
ness:  for  a  man's  life  consisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  the 
things  which  he  possesseth."  Now,  the  parable  that  follows 
is  simply  an  embodiment  of  this  great  lesson,  which  is  thrown 
into  the  parabolic  form,  to  clothe  it  with  life-like  freshness, 
and  give  it  a  more  impressive  and  touching  influence  on  the 
heart.  In  like  manner,  the  three  parables  in  the  15th  ch.  of 
Luke — those  of  the  lost  sheep,  the  lost  piece  of  money,  and 
the  prodigal  son — all  took  their  rise  in  the  taunt  thrown  out 
by  the  Pharisees  against  Christ,  that  He  received  sinners  and 
ate  with  them ;  and  they  each  unfold,  under  so  many  different, 
yet  closely  related  aspects,  the  grounds  of  the  procedure,  out 
of  which  the  taunt  originated;  they  explain  and  justify,  on 
the  common  principles  and  feelings  of  humanity,  the  merciful 
and  considerate  treatment,  which  the  adversaries  vilified. 

These  examples  are  comparatively  simple;  but  there  are 
others,  in  which  the  proper  result  is  not  so  easily  arrived  at. 
It  is,  however,  to  be  sought  in  the  same  way;  the  connexion, 
when  closely  surveyed,  will  generally  be  found  the  best  help 
to  ascertain  the  principal  idea  in  the  parable.  In  the  case 
which,  probably,  presents  the  greatest  difficulty  in  this  respect 
— that  of  the  parable  of  the  labourers  in  the  vineyard,  Matt. 
xxi. — we  shall  not  search  in  vain  if  we  look  in  the  direction 
now  indicated.  By  referring  to  the  close  of  ch.  xx.,  we  find 
the  parable  was  delivered  for  the  purpose  of  embodying  and 
illustrating  a  great  principle,  which  Peter's  self-complacent 
exhibition  of  the  sacrifices  he  and  the  other  apostles  had  made 
for  Christ's  sake,  had  elicited  from  the  Saviour,  "  that  many 
who  were  first  should  be  last,  and  the  last  first."  The  main 
theme  of  the  parable,  which  is  summed  up  with  the  reiteration, 


AND  THEIR  INTERPRETATIONS.  185 

in  a  somewhat  stronger  form,  of  this  practical  saying,  is  com 
prised  in  the  twofold  truth  therein  contained.  It  teaches  that 
the  one  class,  the  outwardly  first,  represented  by  the  early 
called  labourers,  were  unfit  for  the  kingdom,  because  of  the 
sense  of  merit,  grounded  on  their  early  and  long-continued 
services,  rendering  them  indisposed  to  the  simple  reception  of 
the  gifts  of  grace,  on  which  the  Divine  kingdom  is  founded. 
The  other  class,  the  outwardly  last,  represented  by  those  who 
went  into  the  vineyard  at  the  eleventh  hour,  and  who  had  no 
thing  almost  of  their  own  on  which  to  ground  any  claim  to 
blessing — these,  the  parable  teaches,  are  the  proper  subjects 
of  the  kingdom,  having  that  deep  spirit  of  humility,  which 
disposes  them  to  receive  without  a  murmur  whatever  the  Di 
vine  householder  might  give. 

It  is  needless  to  multiply  examples  further.  But  it  will  be 
perceived,  from  what  has  been  already  stated,  that  the  para 
ble  should  be  viewed  in  each  case  as  one  whole.  If  it  is  per 
vaded  by  some  great  idea,  or  specific  lesson,  it  should  be 
viewed  and  treated  with  a  reference  to  this;  and  it  cannot  but 
suffer  if  it  is  broken  up  into  a  variety  of  separate  parts,  and 
each  handled  independently  of  the  others.  At  the  same  time, 
individual  traits  may,  on  certain  occasions,  be  selected  as  the 
basis  of  a  discourse,  if  only  care  is  taken  to  exhibit  the  con 
nexion  in  which  it  stands  with  the  unity  of  the  entire  repre 
sentation,  and  a  view  is  given  of  it  properly  consistent  with 
the  place  belonging  to  it  in  that  connexion. 

3.  There  is  still  another  point,  which  requires  consideration 
in  the  treatment  of  parables,  but  on  which  it  is  scarcely  pos 
sible  to  lay  down  a  very  explicit  direction.  We  refer  to  the 
regard  that  should  be  paid  to  the  individual  traits — how  far 
they  should,  or  should  not,  be  looked  upon  as  having  a  sepa 
rate  significance.  It  is  here  more  especially  that  our  Lord's 
interpretation  of  the  two  parables  formerly  noticed  is  fitted  to 
yield  an  important  service.  From  this  we  see,  that  every 
specific  feature  in  the  earthly  type  has  its  correspondence  in 
the  higher  line  of  things  it  represents.  Nothing,  on  the  one 
hand,  appears  merely  for  ornament;  while,  on  the  other,  no 
thing  is  wiredrawn,  or  made  to  bear  a  meaning  that  seems  too 

16* 


186  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST; 

much  for  it.  It  may,  doubtless,  be  regarded  as  one  of  the 
indications  of  comparative  perfection  belonging  to  the  para 
bles  of  our  Lord,  that  they  admit  of  such  a  close  and  particu 
lar  application ;  for  the  more  numerous  the  points  of  agree 
ment  in  such  a  case,  the  more  perfect  must  be  deemed  the 
form  of  the  discourse. 

In  connexion  with  this,  however,  the  distinctive  nature  of 
the  parable  should  be  borne  in  mind,  which  is  not  fitted  for 
unfolding  the  particular  facts  or  the  more  specific  doctrines  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  as  its  more  fundamental  laws  and 
broader  features.  In  their  nature,  parables  are  a  species  of 
allegory,  or  symbol;  and  whatever  variety  or  depth  of  mean 
ing  this  is  capable  of  embodying,  it  still  must  relate  more  to 
the  great  lines  of  truth  and  duty,  than  to  the  minuter  details 
of  either.  If  we  should,  therefore,  go  to  the  interpretation  of 
them  in  a  spirit  of  partisanship,  eager  to  find  support  for  some 
particular  dogma  we  may  be  anxious  to  uphold,  the  result  is 
sure  to  be  an  unnatural  wresting  of  certain  portions  of  the 
parable.  And  in  all  ages  such  has  too  frequently  been  the 
case  in  the  treatment  that  has  been  given  to  this  species  of 
discourse. 

In  early  times  we  find  many  indications  of  it.  For  ex 
ample,  the  Manicheans  sought  support  for  their  independent 
principle  of  evil,  the  essentially  divine  and  creative  power  of 
the  wicked  one,  in  the  representation  given  in  the  parable  of 
the  tares,  respecting  the  sowing  of  the  bad  seed  in  the  field — 
as  if  the  existence  of  the  bad  were  something  altogether  new, 
and  not  rather  the  depravation  of  what  existed  before.  It  is 
not,  as  Augustine  contended,  and  many  others  of  later  times, 
that  something  is  brought  into  being  apart  from  the  creation 
of  God,  or  accomplishing  what  God  alone  could  effect.  The 
zizania  were  of  God,  as  well  as  the  wheat,  only  in  the  wrong 
place,  and  in  that  place  a  depravation — a  travestying  of  the 
proper  order  and  harmony  of  God's  productions — an  evil,  as 
every  work  of  Satan  is.  Nor  can  we  regard  it  as  any  thing 
but  another,  and,  in  principle,  similar  misinterpretation  of  the 
same  parable,  when  many  in  modern  times  find  in  the  sowing 
of  the*  zizania,  and  the  refusal  of  the  householder  to  have 


AND  THEIR  INTERPRETATION.  187 

them  plucked  up,  an  argument  for  the  utter  relaxation  of  dis 
cipline  in  the  Christian  Church.  They  thus  place  it  in  an 
tagonism  to  the  instruction  contained  in  other  portions  of  the 
New  Testament;  for  example,  the  Epistles  to  the  Seven 
Churches  of  Asia,  and  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
in  which  the  strictest  charges  are  given  to  maintain  a  watch 
ful  discipline,  and  the  severest  rebukes  and  threatenings  are 
uttered  on  account  of  its  neglect.  The  proper  application  of 
that  part  of  the  parable  has  respect  only  to  such  admixtures 
as  spring  up  unperceived — those  which  the  most  vigilant  over 
sight  cannot  prevent,  or  which,  when  they  appear,  are  not  so 
flagrantly  offensive  to  Christian  sense  and  purity,  that  they 
may  at  once  be  proceeded  against  as  utterly  opposed  to  the 
character  of  a  Christian  Church.  It  is  only  of  such  things 
that  the  representation  can  justly  be  understood,  as  of  them 
only  could  it  be  said,  that  the  judicial  treatment  of  them  by 
human  instrumentality  might  involve  the  exclusion  also  of 
some  of  the  true  children  from  the  state  and  privileges  of 
grace.  Comparing  this  parable  with  that  of  the  sower,  what 
is  said  in  the  one  of  the  tares,  nearly  corresponds  to  what  is 
said  in  the  other  of  the  third  class  of  hearers — those  in  whom 
the  cares  of  this  life,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  spring 
up  and  choke  the  word.  Both  alike  seem  to  include  such  as 
might  be  within  the  pale  of  the  Christian  Church,  though  be 
coming  by  degrees  alien  to  it  in  spirit  and  character,  yet  still 
preserving  so  much  of  the  form  of  godliness,  that  no  merely 
human  eye  has  sufficient  discernment  to  draw  the  line  of  de- 
markation  between  them  and  others,  nor  could  any  human 
hand  administer  the  proper  discipline,  without  sometimes,  at 
least,  confounding  together  the  children  of  God  and  the  chil 
dren  of  Satan. 

A  misuse,  similar  to  those  already  noticed,  has  also  frequent 
ly  been  made  of  the  representation  given  in  the  parable  of 
the  prodigal  son,  of  the  reception  which  that  son  met  with  on 
his  return  to  the  father.  No  mention  is  there  made  of  any 
thing  being  necessary  to  secure  the  father's  reconciliation,  or 
provide  for  the  son  access  to^the  bosom  of  his  love,  excepting 
the  son's  own  penitent  frame  of  mind,  and  actual  return;  and 


188  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

hence,  it  is  argued,  in  the  higher  sphere  of  things  represented 
by  these,  there  can  also  be  no  need  for  more — an  atonement 
in  the  ordinary  sense  cannot  be  required.  But  here  the  cases 
are  not  parallel — the  representation,  by  this  use  of  it,  is 
stretched  beyond  the  proper  line;  since  it  is  not  as  a  father, 
but  as  a  righteous  governor,  that  God  requires  an  atonement 
for  the  guilty;  and  to  press  a  feature  of  this  kind  in  an  ex 
clusive  sense,  is  simply  to  place  it  in  antagonism  to  other  parts 
of  Scripture.  This  parable,  like  all  the  others,  was  intended 
to  represent  Divine  things  under  the  image  of  the  human,  only 
in  so  far  as  the  one  could  present  a  parallel  to  the  other.  In 
the  case  of  the  earthly  parent  and  child,  there  was  no  room 
for  the  introduction  of  an  atonement  as  the  basis  of  reconcili 
ation;  the  whole  that  could,  with  any  propriety,  be  exhibited, 
was  the  play  of  feeling  from  the  one  side  to  the  other,  with 
the  results  to  which  it  led — every  thing  of  a  more  fundamen 
tal  kind,  or  connected  with  other  aspects  and  relations  of  the 
subject,  being  left,  for  the  present,  out  of  view. 

Reference  may  still  further  be  made  in  this  connexion  to 
the  treatment  often  given  to  the  parables  in  a  prophetical  re 
spect.  Undoubtedly,  they  do  generally  contain  a  prophetical 
element,  referring  as  well  to  the  future  progress  and  results 
of  Messiah's  kingdom,  as  to  its  existing  character  and  condi 
tion.  But  they  commonly  do  so  under  some  particular  aspect, 
one  parabolical  representation  being  chosen  to  give  prominence 
to  one  feature,  that  was  going  to  be  developed,  and  another 
to  another.  Care,  therefore,  should  be  taken  to  keep  in  view 
the  partial  nature  of  each  representation  ;  otherwise  particular 
traits  will  have  undue  significance  attached  to  them,  and  the 
instruction  conveyed  by  one  parable  will  be  brought  into  con 
flict  with  that  of  another.  Thus,  the  parable  of  the  tares  and 
wheat  presents  the  future  aspect  of  the  kingdom  as  to  the  in 
termingling  of  the  evil  with  the  good — presents  this  as  a  state 
of  things  that  should,  more  or  less,  continue  to  the  end  of 
time; — while  the  parable  of  the  leaven  hid  in  meal  represents 
the  Divine  element  in  the  kingdom  working  on  till  the  whole 
was  pervaded  by  it.  They  are  two  different  aspects,  but  per 
fectly  consistent,  if  the  parts  in  which  they  differ  are  not  un- 


THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM.  189 

duly  pressed;  but  if  otherwise,  then  the  apparent  continuance 
of  evil  in  the  one  case,  and  its  gradual  extinction  in  the  other, 
must  become,  not  the  complements,  but  the  antitheses  of  each 
other.  The  Divine  leaven  cannot  spread  onwards  till  all  is 
leavened,  without,  at  the  same  time,  causing  the  tares  of  error 
and  corruption  to  disappear.  But  that  there  shall  still,  till 
the  time  of  the  end,  be  a  certain  admixture  of  the  evil  with 
the  good,  can  readily  be  supposed;  while,  on  the  whole,  the 
good  continues  to  grow  and  spread,  and  becomes  ultimately 
triumphant. 

These  hints,  perhaps,  may  suffice.  It  is  impossible,  on  such 
a  subject,  to  lay  down  precise  and  definite  rules;  and  the  ex 
act  line  in  each  case  can  only  be  ascertained  by  careful  con 
sideration,  a  well-exercised  judgment,  and  a  spiritual  sense, 
derived  from  a  living  acquaintance  with  the  truths  of  the  gos 
pel,  and  close  attention  to  the  manner  in  which  they  are  re 
vealed  in  Scripture. 


SECTION  TENTH. 

ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM  AS  BEARING  ON  THE  STRUCTURE 
AND  INTERPRETATION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE. 

IT  seems  to  be  the  invariable  tendency  of  the  human  mind 
— the  consequence  of  its  partial  and  imperfect  working — that 
when  it  gets  hold  of  a  right  principle,  it  cannot  rest  till  this 
has  been  pushed  in  some  direction  to  excess;  and  the  subject 
of  Scripture  parallelism  forms  no  exception  to  the  rule.  It 
was  to  the  fine  discernment  and  poetical  taste  of  Bishop  Lowth 
that  we  owe  the  first  correct  appreciation  of  the  distinctive 
characteristics  of  Hebrew  poetry,  and  the  establishment  of 
what  he  denominated  parallelism,  as  the  peculiar  feature  of 
its  rhythmical  structure.  He  showed,  first  in  his  Prelections 
on  Hebrew  Poetry,  and  afterwards  in  his  Preliminary  Disser 
tation  to  his  work  on  Isaiah,  that  while  the  poetry  of  the  He 
brews  did  not  admit  of  rhyme,  nor  of  the  regular  metrical 
measures  we  meet  with  in  the  classical  poets  in  Greece  and 


190  THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM 

Rome,  yet  it  possessed  a  clearly  marked  rhythmical  structure, 
consisting  in  a  certain  correspondence  of  the  lines — not,  how 
ever,  in  respect  to  the  sound,  but  in  respect  to  the  sense;  "  a 
certain  equality,  (as  he  defined  it,)  resemblance,  or  relation 
ship  between  the  members  of  each  period,  so  that  in  one  or 
more  lines  or  members  of  the  same  period  things  shall  answer 
to  things,  and  words  to  words,  as  if  fitted  to  each  other  by  a 
kind  of  rule  or  measure,"  (Prelec.  xix.)  Lowth.  gave  to  this 
rhythmical  structure,  as  we  have  said,  the  name  of  parallel 
ism,  or  the  parallelism  of  members — a  name  which  is  sufficient 
ly  indicative  of  the  reality,  and  is  not  likely,  in  this  country 
at  least,  to  be  displaced  by  the  "  verse-rhythm,"  or  "  thought- 
rhythm"  of  Ewald.  It  is,  however,  in  the  thought  or  the 
sense  that  the  rhythm  properly  lies.  It  is  not  simply,  as 
Ewald  justly  states,  a  harmony  of  the  members  of  the  verse, 
but  along  with  this,  and  as  the  foundation  of  this,  "  the  rhyth 
mical  outpouring  of  the  subject  and  life  of  the  thoughts  which 
fill  the  verse ;  and  the  beauty  of  the  verse,  as  a  whole,  rises 
in  proportion  to  the  equilibrium  and  symmetry  with  which  the 
sense  is  poured  forth." 

We  are  not  called  here  to  enter  into  any  formal  investiga 
tion  of  the  subject  of  parallelism,  as  connected  with  the  poeti 
cal  portions  of  Old  Testament  Scripture.  But  it  may  be  pro 
per  to  state,  that  under  the  general  principle  of  parallelism 
Bishop  Lowth  comprehended  the  different  forms,  which  he 
called  severally  synonymous,  antithetic,  and  synthetic  or  con 
structive  parallels.  The  synonymous  parallel  lines  are  those 
which  correspond  one  to  another,  by  expressing  the  same  sense 
in  different  but  equivalent  terms — when  a  proposition  is  de 
livered,  and  is  immediately  repeated  in  whole  or  in  part,  the 
expression  being  varied,  but  the  sense  entirely  or  nearly  the 
same.  As  when  it  is  said — 

"0-Jehovah,  in-Thy-strength  the-king  shall-rejoice, 
And-in-Thy-salvation  how  greatly  shall-he-exult! 
The-desire  of-his-heart  Thou-hast-grantcd  unto-him, 
And-the-request  of-his-lips  Thou-hast-not-denied." 

The  correspondence  here  is  confined  to  two  lines,  the  second 
of  the  two  having  a  formal  resemblance  both  in  thought  and 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  191 

in  membership  to  the  first.  But  the  correspondence  may  also 
extend  to  three,  to  four,  or  even  to  five  lines. — The  antithetic 
parallels  are  those  "in  which  two  lines  correspond  with  one 
another  by  an  opposition  of  terms  and  sentiments;  in  which 
the  second  is  contrasted  with  the  first,  sometimes  in  expres 
sions,  sometimes  in  sense  only."  One  of  the  simplest  examples 
is  Prov.  x.  7,  "The  memory  of  the  just  is  blessed,  But  the 
name  of  the  wicked  shall  rot."  Or  this,  Prov.  xxvii.  6,  "  Faith 
ful  are  the  wounds  of  a  friend,  But  deceitful  are  the  kisses  of 
an  enemy."  The  antithesis  expressed  may  differ  both  in  kind 
and  degree;  and  is  found,  indeed,  to  exist  in  very  consider 
able  variety,  both  in  the  Proverbs,  where  this  species  of  pa 
rallelism  particularly  abounds,  and  in  other  parts  of  Scripture. 
The  synthetic  or  constructive  parallel  lines  are  those,  "  in  which 
the  parallelism  consists  only  in  the  similar  form  of  construc 
tion;  in  which  word  does  not  answer  to  word,  and  sentence  to 
sentence,  as  equivalent  or  opposite ;  but  there  is  a  correspond 
ence  and  equality  between  the  different  propositions  in  respect 
of  the  shape  or  turn  of  the  whole  sentence,  and  of  the  con 
structive  parts:  such  as  noun  answering  to  noun,  verb  to  verb, 
number  to  number,  negative  to  negative,  interrogative  to  in 
terrogative."  From  its  very  nature,  this  species  of  parallel 
ism  is  of  a  somewhat  looser,  and  more  discursive  sort  than 
the  others ;  but,  as  one  of  the  best,  and  most  familiar  exam 
ples  of  it,  we  may  point  to  Psal.  xix.,  "The  law  of  the  Lord 
is  perfect — converting  the  soul;  The  testimony  of  the  Lord  is 
sure — making  wise  the  simple,"  etc. 

Now,  looking  to  this  parallelism,  as  first  explained  by  Bi 
shop  Lowth,  and  applied  by  him  to  the  more  strictly  poetical 
portions  of  Scripture,  one  can  easily  see  the  propriety  and  fit 
ness  of  having  the  rhythmical  structure  of  those  portions  con 
fined  to  such  a  characteristic.  It  is  the  simplest  of  all  rhyth 
mical  forms,  and  the  freest,  and,  as  such,  peculiarly  adapted 
to  inspired  strains,  in  which,  whatever  scope  may  be  allowed 
to  the  fancy,  the  form  must  still  be  subordinated  to  the  sense. 
The  artificial  and  complicated  measures  of  classical  poetry 
would  have  been  unsuited  to  such  a  purpose;  for  it  would 
have  been  difficult,  next  to  impossible,  for  us  to  regard  what 


192  THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM 

was  written,  if  thrown  into  such  forms,  as  the  unconstrained 
and  fresh  utterances  of  men,  who  spake  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  the  chaste  and  natural  simplicity 
of  parallelism  which  peculiarly  adapts  it  for  sacred  purposes, 
and  renders  the  discourse  so  true,  hearty,  and  confidential.1 
For,  when  the  heart  pours  itself  forth,  there  naturally  flows 
stream  upon  stream — which  is  parallelism;  or  it  turns  over 
the  image,  and  shows  the  reverse  side  in  order  to  impress  the 
matter  more  deeply  upon  the  heart — and  this  again  is  paral 
lelism.  Only  a  measure  which  possessed  such  freedom  and 
simplicity  could  have  been  worthy  of  being  employed  as  the 
poetry  of  revelation.  And  this  alone,  too,  properly  consisted 
with  the  design  of  the  Bible,  as  destined  for  the  use  of  men, 
in  every  nation  and  every  language.  It  is  the  excellence  of 
the  simple  rhythmical  structure  of  Hebrew  poetry,  that  it  is 
"transfusible  (to  use  the  words  of  Bishop  Jebb)  into  all  lan 
guages — an  excellence,  not  only  unattainable  in  classical 
poetry,  but  prevented  by  classical  metre.  Classical  poetry  is 
the  poetry  of  one  language,  and  of  one  people.  The  words 
are,  I  shall  not  say  chosen  (though  this  be  sometimes  the  case,) 
but  arranged,  with  a  view,  not  primarily  to  the  sense,  but  to 
the  sound.  In  literal  translation,  therefore,  especially  if  the 
order  of  the  original  words  be  preserved,  not  only  the  melody 
is  lost,  but  the  sense  is  irreparably  injured.  Hebrew  poetry, 
on  the  contrary,  is  universal  poetry,  the  poetry  of  all  lan 
guages  and  of  all  peoples:  the  collocation  of  the  words  is  pri 
marily  directed  to  secure  the  best  possible  announcement  and 
discrimination  of  the  sense ;  and  so,  if  a  translator  be  only  lite 
ral — if  he  only  preserve,  so  far  as  the  genius  of  his  language 
will  admit,  the  original  order  of  the  words,  he  will  infallibly 
put  the  reader  in  possession  of  all,  or  nearly  all,  that  the  He 
brew  text  can  give  to  the  best  Hebrew  scholar  of  the  present 
day."2 

Bishop  Lowth  has  himself — in  the  Introduction  to  his  work 
on  Isaiah — given  examples  of  this:  he  has  shown  how,  by  ad 
hering  closely  to  the  order  of  the  original,  not  only  may  the 
parallelism  be  preserved,  but  a  more  lively  and  spirited  exhi- 

1  Herder,  Hebr.  Poesie,  i.  21.  2  Sacred  Literature,  p.  20. 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  193 

bition  also  of  the  sense  be  given,  than  is  done  by  neglecting 
it.  And  he  has  further  shown,  that  by  means  of  the  paral 
lelism  the  interpretation  is  sometimes  aided,  in  those  cases 
especially,  in  which  rare  words  are  employed,  or  words  of 
doubtful  import;  the  plainer  meaning  of  one  member  throw 
ing  light  upon  the  corresponding  one.  At  the  same  time,  the 
help  to  be  derived  from  this  source  is  of  a  somewhat  ambiguous 
character,  and  is  very  apt  to  lead  astray.  In  the  hands  of 
Lowth  himself,  and  of  some  of  his  followers,  it  led  to  not  a 
few  arbitrary  interpretations,  and  unwarranted  tamperings 
with  the  sacred  text;  as  a  change  in  the  received  import  of  a 
word,  or  in  the  existing  text,  when  it  seemed  favoured  by  the 
parallelism,  presented  itself  as  an  easy  mode  of  getting  over 
a  difficulty,  while,  perhaps,  it  only  led  to  a  departure  from  the 
true  meaning  of  the  original.  As  a  help  to  interpretation, 
therefore,  the  parallelism  of  Hebrew  poetry  always  requires 
to  be  used  with  much  caution.  It  does  so  more  especially  on 
this  account,  that  there  is  both  a  considerable  diversity,  and  a 
great  freedom  manifested  in  the  use  of  the  parallel  arrange 
ment.  So  that  what  is  called  the  synonymous  parallel  is  not 
always,  and  indeed  very  rarely,  altogether  synonymous;  with 
a  general  similarity,  it  usually  exhibits  some  distinct  shade  of 
meaning;  and,  again,  when  there  is  something  of  antithesis, 
the  sentiment  expressed  is  often  but  partially  antithetic. 

Bishop  Lowth  was  not  insensible  of  such  freedoms  and 
shades  of  diversity;  for,  when  speaking  of  the  second  member 
of  synonymous  parallels,  he  represents  it  as  containing  either 
entirety,  or  nearly,  the  same  sense  as  the  first.  And  in  his 
4th  Prelection,  when  treating  generally  of  the  subject  of  pa 
rallelism,  he  says  not  merely  that  they  repeat,  but  also  that 
they  vary  and  strengthen  the  sense  (idem  iterant,  variant,  au- 
gent.)  Practically,  however,  this  was  too  much  overlooked 
both  by  hirn,  and  by  his  followers;  and  the  custom  sprung  up 
and  grew,  among  lexicographers  and  commentators,  of  ascribing 
many  unwarranted  meanings  to  words,  on  the  simple  ground, 
that  the  sense  as  determined  by  the  parallelism  seemed  to  re 
quire  them.  On  this  practice,  which  extended  to  the  Greek 
Scriptures  also,  Bishop  Jebb  very  properly  cautioned  Biblical 
17 


194  THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM 

students:  he  said,  "The  assumed  synonyme  of  periods,  mera- 
hers,  or  lines,  has,  in  many  instances,  occasioned  the  conse 
quent  assumption,  that  in  the  Alexandrine  translators  of  the 
Old  Testament  words  are  synonymous,  which  in  all  other 
writers  have  totally  diverse  meanings;  and  the  same  principle 
has  been  applied  to  several  words  and  passages  in  the  New 
Testament."  He  adds,  "Let  the  cited  passages  be  carefully 
examined,  and  I  venture  to  affirm,  that  instead  of  a  syno 
nyme,  there  will  almost  universally  be  found  an  important  va 
riation  of  meaning,  between  the  related  members;  commonly 
a  progress  in  the  sense;  but  always  such  a  variation  as  will 
quite  supersede  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  an  unusual,  much 
less  an  unprecedented,  acceptation  of  the  terms  employed." 
(p.  51.) 

Jebb,  however,  fell  into  something  like  an  opposite  extreme ; 
and,  instead  of  being  satisfied  with  showing  a  general  varia 
tion  in  the  meaning  of  one  parallel  line  as  compared  with  ano 
ther,  he  sought  to  establish  a  uniform  and  regular  progression 
of  thought  in  the  sentences.  Hence,  the  parallels  of  the  first 
class  instead  of  being  called  synonymous,  have  come  to  be 
usually  designated  gradational — though  Jebb  himself  pre 
ferred  the  term  cognate.  We  call  this  an  extreme  in  the  op 
posite  direction ;  for  though  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  in  a 
very  large  proportion  of  the  parallelisms  of  Scripture,  there  is 
a  gradational  advance,  an  intensifying  of  the  sense  in  the  se 
cond  parallelistic  line  as  compared  with  that  given  in  the  first, 
yet  in  a  considerable  number  of  cases  there  is  a  substantial 
agreement,  or  a  diversity  without  anything  that  can  fitly  be 
called  a  progression  of  thought.  And  the  attempt  to  make 
out  a  uniform  gradational  sense  in  the  parallelism  has  led, 
not  unfrequently,  to  forced  interpretations.  Take,  for  ex 
ample,  one  of  Jebb's  illustrative  passages: — • 

"Who  shall  ascend  the  mountain  of  Jehovah? 
And  who  shall  stand  within  His  holy  Place? 
The  clean  o^hands,  and  the  pure  in  heart." — Ps.  xxiv.  3,  4. 

"To  ascend,"  says  Jebb,  "marks  progress;  to  stand,  sta 
bility  and  confirmation;  the  mountain  of  Jehovah ,  the  site  of 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  195 

the  Divine  sanctuary;  His  lioly  place,  the  sanctuary  itself; 
arid  in  correspondence  with  the  advance  of  the  two  lines  which 
form  the  first  couplet,  there  is  an  advance  in  the  members  of 
the  third  line:  the  clean  of  hands,  and  the  pure  in  heart: — 
the  clean  of  hands  shall  ascend  the  mountain  of  Jehovah,  the 
pure  in  heart  shall  stand  within  His  holy  place"  (p.  40.)  Au 
gustine,  as  Jebb  acknowledges,  had  in  substance  made  the 
same  distinction;  but  whenever,  or  by  whomsoever  made,  I 
hold  it  to  be  quite  fanciful — at  least  in  the  form  in  which  it 
has  now  been  presented.  The  Psalmist  is  plainly  describing, 
in  this  part  of  the  Psalm,  the  sincere  worshipper  of  God,  and 
doing  so  in  respect  to  his  going  to  appear  before  God  at  the 
appointed  place  of  worship  under  the  Old  economy.  But  no 
thing  seems  farther  from  his  mind,  than  the  thought  of  deli 
neating  different  degrees  of  purity,  and  of  privilege  connected 
with  it — one  to  occupy  a  certain  position  of  nearness,  and  ano 
ther  to  occupy  a  higher  and  a  holier.  To  ascend  God's  moun 
tain,  in  the  sense  here  contemplated,  was  all  one,  in  substance, 
with  standing  in  His  holy  place;  for,  it  was  for  the  purpose 
and  with  the  view  of  standing  in  such  a  place,  that  the  wor 
shipper  comes  into  consideration  as  ascending  the  mountain ; — 
and  the  law  of  Moses  recognised  no  distinction  of  the  kind 
here  indicated — between  cleanness  of  hands  fitting  for  one  act 
of  worship,  or  one  stage  of  approach,  and  purity  of  heart  fit 
ting  for  another.  Cleanness  of  hands  .has  no  other  significance 
than  as  a  symbol  of  moral  purity ;  if  it  differs  at  all  from  the 
other  expression — purity  of  heart— it  can  only  be  in  pointing 
more  to  the  life  as  embodying  the  purity,  which  has  its  seat 
in  the  heart; — but  the  two  expressions  at  most  denote,  not 
different  degrees  of  goodness,  but  different  aspects  of  the  same 
goodness.  Besides,  in  a  continuous  description  of  this  sort, 
how  can  you  stop  simply  at  the  second  term  of  the  descrip 
tion  ?  If  there  is  a  progression  in  the  first  two,  why  should  it 
not  extend  also  to  what  follows?  It  is  added,  "Who  hath 
not  lifted  up  his  soul  to  vanity,  nor  sworn  deceitfully."  Do 
these  denote  a  gradation  of  excellence  beyond  purity  of  heart? 
Or  is  the  one  clause  here  also  to  be  connected  with  ascending 
the  mountain,  and  the  other  with  standing  in  the  holy  place? 


196  THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM 

Neither  of  these  assertions  can  with  any  propriety  be  made. 
And  on  tnis  ground  also  we  hold,  that  the  distinction  is  an 
entirely  fanciful  one;  and  that  the  description  ought  to  be 
viewed  in  its  entireness,  as  the  description,  under  a  variety  of 
aspects,  of  one  who  might  appear  with  acceptance  among  God's 
sincere  worshippers.  The  several  epithets  are  not  absolutely 
synonymous,  but  neither  are  they  gradational ;  they  are  merely 
diverse  representations  of  the  righteous  man's  state  and  cha 
racter. 

It  is,  therefore,  my  conviction  that  the  principle  of  paral 
lelism  has  been  carried  to  excess  by  Dr.  Jebb,  and  his  fol 
lowers,  in  the  way  of  discovering  correspondences  or  relations 
of  a  somewhat  more  complicated  and  artificial  kind,  than  really 
exist.  But  the  chief  excess  has  been  in  connexion  with  what 
is  called  the  introverted  parallelism — &  fourth  form  introduced 
by  Jebb — and  its  application  to  portions  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  writings.  On  this  sort  of  parallel,  Jebb  says,  "There 
are  stanzas  so  constructed,  that  whatever  be  the  number  of 
lines,  the  first  lines  shall  be  parallel  with  the  last;  the  second 
with  the  penultimate;  and  so  throughout,  in  an  order  that 
looks  inward,  or,  to  borrow  a  military  phrase,  from  flanks  to 
centre."  One  of  the  longest  examples  given  of  this  by  Jebb 
is  also,  perhaps,  the  best  for  his  purpose  that  could  have  been 
selected:  it  is  in  Psalm  cxxxv.  15 — 18,  and  consists  of  eight 
lines,  of  which  the  first  and  eighth  are  held  to  be  parallel — 
then  the  second  and  seventh — the  third  and  sixth — and  finally, 
the  two  beside  each  other,  the  fourth  and  fifth,  in  the  centre. 
The  passage  is  the  following: — 

f;  The  idols  of  the  heathen  are  silver  and  gold,  "They  have  ears,  but  they  hear  not; 

The  work  of  men's  hands:  Neither  is  there  any  breath  in  their  months. 

They  have  mouths,  but  they  speak  not;  They  who  make  them  are  like  unto  them; 

They  have  eyes,  but  they  see  not ;  So  are  all  they  who  put  their  trust  in  them." 

"In  the  first  line,"  says  Dr.  Jebb-,  "we  have  the  idolatrous 
heathen;  in  the  eighth,  those  who  put  their  trust  in  idols;  in 
the  second  line  the  fabrication,  in  the  seventh  the  fabrica 
tors;  in  the  third  line  mouths  without  articulation,  in  the  sixth 
mouths  without  breath;  in  the  fourth  line  eyes  without  vision, 
and  in  the  fifth  ears  without  the  sense  of  hearing."  No  doubt, 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  197 

a  sort  of  correspondence  throughout,  but,  at  the  same  time, 
no  organic  connexion,  or  peculiar  relationship  between  the 
lines  thus  artificially  brought  together — nothing  that  mate 
rially  contributes  to  help  the  meaning.  Thus,  in  the  first  and 
last,  "the  idols  of  the  heathen  are  silver  and  gold — so  are  all 
they  who  put  their  trust  in  them."  What  is  gained,  we  ask, 
by  bringing  these  far-distant  lines  into  juxtaposition  ?  So  far 
from  the  sense  thereby  gaining  in  force  and  clearness,  it  is 
not  even  preserved;  and  though,  it  is  true,  idolatrous  persons 
are  the  subjects  in  both  of  them,  yet  this  is  no  more  than  what 
may  be  said  of  the  seventh  line — "they  who  make  them  are 
like  to  them," — and  one  might  as  well  join  together  the  first 
and  seventh  as  the  first  and  eighth.  Indeed,  rather  do  so,  as 
this  collocation  would  make  sense,  while  the  other  does  not. 
The  parallelism,  therefore,  viewed  in  respect  to  the  sense, 
which  is  the  main  point,  fails  in  the  manner  it  is  here  at 
tempted  to  be  carried  out;  and  we  gain  nothing  by  throwing 
ourselves  back  from  the  later  to  the  earlier  line,  with  which 
it  is  supposed  to  have  some  special  affinity.  On  the  contrary, 
we  are  in  danger  of  losing  the  real  progression  of  thought, 
which  appears  in  the  passage,  when  viewed  consecutively,  for 
a  somewhat  fanciful  arrangement  of  its  several  parts.  So 
also  in  multitudes  of  passages,  that  might  be  produced  from 
human  compositions,  it  might  be  perfectly  possible  to  throw 
the  successive  lines  of  thought  into  similar  combinations, 
although  these  were  quite  remote  from  the  mind  of  their  re 
spective  authors ;  but  by  doing  so  we  would  gain  nothing,  we 
should  rather  lose  by  making  the  attempt. 

It  may  be  well  to  give  proof  of  this  by  pointing  to  some  ex 
amples;  but  let  me  first  present  some  idea  of  the  extent  to 
which  the  parallelistic  principle  has  been  carried.  A  great 
portion  of  Bishop  Jebb's  work  on  Sacred  Literature  was  de 
voted  to  the  purpose  of  applying  that  principle,  and  more 
especially  this  latter  form  of  it,  to  New  Testament  Scripture. 
Of  course,  there  are  parallelisms  there.  The  language  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  well  as  its  doctrines,  spring  out  of  the  Old ; 
and  where  the  poetical  element  enters,  it  naturally  assumes 
much  of  the  ancient  form ;  the  parallelistic  structure  is  more 

17* 


193  THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM 

or  less  preserved.  It  is  not,  therefore,  the  fact  of  the  exist 
ence  of  parallelisms  in  New  Testament  Scripture,  but  the  limits 
within  which  they  should  be  confined,  or  the  form  they  may 
be  made  to  assume,  that  can  be  regarded  as  just  matter  of 
controversy.  It  is  not  the  presence,  but  the  excess  of  the 
principle,  as  exhibited  by  the  class  of  writers  referred  to,  to 
which  we  object.  But  this  principle,  first  of  all,  is  often  sought 
for  in  cases  where  there  is  nothing  peculiar — where  there  is 
merely  such  a  structure  of  the  sentences  as  the  mind  naturally 
adopts  when  tersely  expressing  its  thoughts,  without  thinking 
of  any  regular  measures  or  parallel  lines.  Thus,  in  Luke  xii. 
48,  "Unto  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of  him  shall  much  be 
required;  and  to  whom  they  have  committed  much,  of  him 
shall  they  demand  the  more ; " — or  Gal.  vi.  8,  "  He  who  soweth 
to  the  flesh,  shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corruption;  and  he  who 
soweth  to  the  Spirit,  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life  eternal."  In 
Matt.  viii.  20,  we  have  an  example  of  what  is  called  the  triplet, 
there  being  three  lines  in  parallelism, — "The  foxes  have  dens, 
And  the  birds  of  the  air  have  nests,  But  the  Son  of  Man  hath 
not  where  to  lay  His  head;"  and  again,  in  Rev.  xiv.  18, 
"Put  forth  thy  sharp  sickle,  And  gather  in  the  clusters  of  the 
vine  of  the  earth,  For  its  grapes  have  become  fully  ripe." 
Then,  there  is  the  quatrain,  consisting  of  two  parallel  couplets, 
the  pairs  of  which  are  termed  sometimes  directly,  sometimes 
inversely  parallel — of  which  the  passages  just  cited  from  Luke 
and  Galatians  may  be  taken  as  specimens; — or  this  in  John 
xv.  10,  "If  ye  keep  My  commandments.  Ye  shall  abide  in  my 
love,  Even  as  I  have  kept  My  Father's  commandments,  And 
abide  in  His  love:" — And  even  this  in  Mark  xii.  12,  "And 
they  sought  to  seize  Him,  And  they  feared  the  people;  For 
they  knew  that  against  them  he  spake  the  parable ;  And  having 
left  Him,  they  departed."  But  examples  of  longer  stanzas, 
having  five,  six,  and  even  more  lines,  are  produced — such  as 
John  xi.  9,  10,  "Are  there  not  twelve  hours  in  the  day?  If 
a  man  walk  in  the  day  he  stumbleth  not;  Because  he  seeth 
the  light  of  this  world:  But  if  a  man  walk  in  the  night  he 
Rtumbleth;  Because  the  light  is  not  in  him"  (five;) — also 
Matt.  xxiv.  7,  8;  1  Thess.  v.  7,  8;  Rom.  ii.  28,  29.  For  those 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  199 

of  six,  see  Matt.  xvi.  2,  3  ("When  it  is  evening,  ye  say,  'a, 
calm!'  For  the  sky  is  red:  And  in  the  morning,  *  to-day  a 
tempest;'  For  the  sky  is  red  and  lowering:  Hypocrites!  the 
face  of  the  sky  ye  know  how  to  discern,  But  ye  cannot  [dis 
cern]  the  signs  of  the  times.")  Also  Luke  xii.  4,  5,  47,  48; 
1  Cor.  xv.  47 — 49;  and  many  parts  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount. 

Now,  that  there  is  nothing  of  the  proper  parallel  arrange 
ment  in  such  passages  as  these,  is  evident  from  the  difficulty 
often  of  knowing  where  precisely  the  division  of  the  lines 
should  be  made,  or  which  part  is  to  be  held  as  corresponding 
with  another.  One  has  to  cast  about  for  a  time,  to  see  how 
the  sentences  can  be  brought  into  shape;  and  were  it  not  for 
the  stanza-form,  into  which  they  are  thrown  by  the  advocates 
of  parallelism,  very  few  persons  would  ever  have  imagined 
that  they  really  admitted  of  such  an  arrangement.  They 
belong  to  that  species  of  composition  which  consists  of  apoph 
thegm,  or  short  sententious  utterance,  usually  embodying  some 
sort  of  comparison  or  contrast,  and  in  which  the  mind  natu 
rally — in  modern  as  well  as  ancient  times,  in  its  ordinary  as 
well  as  in  its  loftier  moods — throws  its  words  into  set  forms 
and  relative  proportions — but  without  ever  thinking  of  any 
thing  like  remote  and  complicated  parallels.  Open,  for 
example,  Lord  Bacon's  Collection  of  Apophthegms,  and  take 
one  of  the  very  first  that  occurs.  As  presented  by  him,  it 
forms  two  short  sentences;  but  in  the  hands  of  the  Parallel- 
ists  it  would  make  a  choice  specimen  of  the  introverted  qua 
train — thus: 

Good  fame  is  like  fire: 

When  you  have  kindled  it,  you  may  easily  preserve  it; 
Cut  if  once  you  have  extinguished  it,  you  will  not  easily  kindle  it  again, 

At  least  not  make  it  burn  as  bright  as  it  did. 

Here,  it  might  be  stated,  the  first  and  the  last  lines  corre 
spond;  they  both  speak  of  fire  in  its  capacity  of  burning,  or 
shining  brightly.  Then,  the  two  intermediate  clauses  refer 
to  two  different  conditions,  with  their  respective  effects — the 
fire,  when  once  kindled,  easily  preserved;  when  extinguished 


200  THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM 

after  having  been  kindled,  not  easily  lit  up  anew.  But  \vhat 
is  gained  by  this  sort  of  introversion?  Does  it  throw  addi 
tional  light  on  the  thoughts  expressed,  or  present  them  in  a 
more  striking  aspect?  Not  in  the  least;  it  only  suggests  an 
artificial  arrangement,  where  none  whatever  was  intended, 
and  the  mind  of  the  writer  was  merely  following  the  natural 
course  of  its  thoughts  and  feelings.  We  might  say  substan 
tially  the  same  of  another  example  in  Bacon:  "In  great 
place,  ask  counsel  of  both  times — Of  the  ancient  time,  what 
is  best;  and  of  the  latter  time,  what  is  fittest:" — quite  natu 
ral  and  orderly  as  it  stands,  but  incapable  of  being  improved 
by  being  drawn  out  into  parallels.  Or,  look  at  this  longer 
specimen  from  the  same  quarter: — 

"The  empirical  philosophers  are  like  pismires, 

They  only  lay  up  and  use  their  store; 
The  rationalists  are  like  the  spiders, 

They  spin  all  out  of  their  own  bowels. 
But  give  me  a  philosopher  who  is  like  the  bee, 
Who  hath  a  middle  faculty, 

Gathering  from  abroad, 
But  digesting  that  which  is  gathered, 
By  his  own  virtue." 

Thrown  into  so  many  lines,  this  passage  doubtless  presents 
a  great  variety  of  parallels — parallels,  too,  much  more  dis 
tinctly  marked,  and  more  easily  detected,  than  many  of  those 
found  in  Xew  Testament  Scripture.  But  what  advantage  is 
gained  by  presenting  the  passage  in  such  a  form?  Was  this 
form  present  to  the  mind  of  the  writer?  Or,  when  exhibited, 
does  it  serve  to  bring  out  the  thoughts  in  a  more  lucid  and 
impressive  manner?  The  writer  himself  has  simply  put  them 
down  as  so  many  consecutive  sentences — each  growing  natu 
rally  out  of  what  preceded;  and,  so  far  from  making  any 
improvement  upon  the  manner  of  exhibiting  the  truths  stated, 
the  introduction  of  parallelisms  would  tend  rather  to  lead  our 
minds  in  the  wrong  direction — make  us  conceive  of  him  as 
busying  himself  about  artificial  forms  of  expression,  while  in 
reality  he  was  intent  only  upon  giving  distinct  utterance,  or 
logical  sequence,  to  the  ideas  which  had  formed  themselves  in 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  201 

his  mind.  The  proper  parallelism — that  which  by  way  of 
distinction  should  be  so  called — is  a  particular  form  of  that 
measured  diction,  which  the  mind  in  an  elevated  state  of  feel 
ing  instinctively  adopts,  as  necessary  to  give  adequate  ex 
pression  to  the  fiery  glow,  or  swelling  fulness  of  sentiment,  of 
which  it  is  conscious :  it  cannot  be  satisfied  with  itself,  till  it 
has  thrown  its  conceptions  and  feelings  into  such  a  compressed 
and  regulated  form.  But  in  the  examples  that  have  been 
adduced  both  from  Bacon  and  the  New  Testament,  it  is  the 
reflective  or  logical  faculties  that  are  at  work.  The  mind  is 
in  its  ordinary  mood,  and  merely  seeks  in  a  pointed  and  con 
secutive  manner  to  present  its  thoughts  on  some  particular 
topic.  So  that  introverted  parallelisms,  or  complicated  struc 
tures  of  any  kind,  are  out  of  place ;  nor  can  they  serve  any 
purpose  but  that  of  suggesting  the  idea  of  constraint  or  art, 
where  in  reality  nothing  of  the  kind  existed. 

Not  only,  however,  does  this  extreme  fondness  for  parallel 
isms,  and  the  attempt  to  discover  them  in  the  simply  didactic 
or  historical  portions  of  New  Testament  Scripture,  tend  to 
give  too  artistic  and  constrained  an  appearance  to  such  por 
tions,  but  it  leads  occasionally  to  fanciful  conceits  and  false 
interpretations.  Ihe  most  part,  as  we  have  said,  of  the  Ser 
mon  on  the  Mount  has  been  turned  into  examples  of  parallel 
isms — some  of  them  of  the  most  involved  and  intricate  de 
scription,  but  never  with  the  effect  of  throwing  any  fresh  light 
upon  its  different  parts — sometimes,  however,  with  the  effect 
of  arbitrarily  changing  the  connexion,  and  obscuring  the  na 
tural  import.  In  proof  of  this  we  may  take  one  of  Jebb's 
examples,  which  is  re-produced  by  Dr.  Forbes,  in  his  work  on 
Scripture  Parallelism — viz.,  Matt.  vii.  6:  "Give  not  that 
which  is  holy  to  the  dogs,  Neither  cast  your  pearls  before 
swine;  Lest  they  trample  them  under  their  feet,  And  turn 
about  and  rend  you."  This  is  considered  as  a  specimen  of 
the  introverted  parallelism ;  so  that  the  first  and  the  fourth 
go  together,  then  the  second  and  the  third.  It  is,  therefore, 
according  to  Dr.  Jebb,  to  be  read  thus :  "  Give  not  that  which 
is  holy  to  the  dogs,  Lest  they  turn  about  and  rend  you;  Nei 
ther  cast  your  pearls  before  swine,  Lest  they  trample  them 


202  THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM 

under  their  feet."  And  this  interpretation  is  justified  on  the 
ground  that  our  Lord  wished  to  place  the  more  dangerous  act 
of  imprudence  first  and  last,  so  as  to  make  it,  and  its  fatal 
result,  produce  the  deepest  impression  on  the  mind;  while  the 
other  and  less  senseless  form — that  represented  by  the  image 
of  casting  pearls  before  swine — is  placed  in  the  middle. 
But,  in  that  case,  by  the  ordinary  laws  of  construction,  some 
thing  would  have  been  required  to  carry  back  our  thoughts 
from  the  last  to  the  first  member:  and  Dr.  Jebb,  sensible  of 
this,  shoves  in  a  those  before  the  verbs  in  the  last  line — 
"Lest  those  turn  about  and  rend  you."  And,  indeed,  to 
make  the  matter  quite  right,  the  they  in  the  preceding  clause 
should  have  been  these:  it  should  have  stood  thus:  "Give 
not  that  which  is  holy  to  the  dogs,  Neither  cast  your  pearls 
before  swine:  Lest  these  (the  swine)  trample  them  under 
their  feet,  And  those  (the  dogs)  turn  about  and  rend  you." 
In  this  way,  no  doubt,  the  references  become  tolerably  plain; 
but  it  is  a  plainness  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  the  inven 
tion  or  arbitrariness  of  an  interpreter  who  has  a  theory  to 
support,  and  adjusts  the  words  to  the  theory,  rather  than  the 
theory  to  the  words.  Plainness  of  this  kind  is  too  easily 
found  to  be  of  much  value,  and  in  the  present  case  it  is  not 
needed.  For,  while  both  dogs  and  swine  might  be  included 
in  the  latter  part  of  our  Lord's  statement,  it  is  the  swine 
more  especially,  not  the  dogs,  that  must  be  meant.  The  one, 
as  well  as  the  other,  might  turn  about  and  rend  those  who 
threw  something  in  their  way; — but  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  it  is  the  swine  we  are  here  naturally  led  to  think  of 
as  acting  such  a  part: — both,  because  they  are  the  more  vo 
racious  and  savage  in  disposition,  and  because  the  thing  cast 
to  them — pearls — being  fitted  to  mock  rather  than  to  satiate 
their  appetite,  it  was  quite  natural  for  them  to  turn  about  and 
rend  the  person  who  had  thus  provoked,  without  satisfying, 
their  greed.  The  dogs,  on  the  other  hand,  had  no  temptation 
to  act  so  ferocious  a  part;  for  in  having  what  was  holy  given 
to  them,  they  doubtless  had  what  they  wished — they  got  flesh 
to  eat;  only,  being  holy  flesh,  they  were  incapable  of  appre 
ciating  its  distinctive  character,  and  treated  it  as  a  common 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  203 

thing.  Understood  spiritually,  the  dogs  represent  those  who 
are  in  such  a  grovelling  and  debased  condition,  that  they  have 
no  aptitude  for  the  things  of  God — no  relish  or  capacity  for 
spiritual  exercises  and  enjoyments;  so  that  to  admit  them  to 
sacred  privileges,  or  to  spread  before  them  the  joys  of  the 
Divine  life,  were  only  to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  treating 
as  common — profaning — what  should  be  handled  with  holy 
reverence  and  spiritual  relish.  The  characters  represented 
by  the  swine,  however,  are  such  as  have  reached  a  more  ad 
vanced  stage  in  the  course  of  depravity — not  grovelling, 
merely,  and  sensual,  but  also  devilish — ready  to  resent  as 
evil  what  has  been  meant  for  good,  but  does  not  suit  their 
unhallowed  appetite;  hence  disposed,  not  only  to  treat  with 
despite  or  scorn  the  pearls  of  Gospel  truth  and  promise,  but 
also  to  vilify,  abuse,  or  persecute  those  who  would  press  these 
on  their  regard.  It  is  such,  therefore — the  characters  repre 
sented  by  the  swine — the  sour,  ungenial,  repulsive,  or  furious, 
as  well  as  worldly  spirits,  who  are  chiefly  referred  to,  and 
wrarned  against,  as  likely  to  turn  again  and  rend  those  who 
might  offer  the  precious  things  of  the  Gospel  to  them.  Thus 
it  appears,  that  the  natural  order  and  connexion  is  also  the 
best;  and  the  search  after  a  more  artificial  arrangement  only 
leads  to  a  mistaken  application  of  the  images  employed. 

The  same  line  of  remark  in  substance  might  be  extended 
to  many  other  passages  in  New  Testament  fecripture,  to  which 
the  principle  of  parallelism  has  been  applied.  And  the  ob 
jections  already  urged  are  a  fortiori  valid  in  regard  to  a  still 
farther  extension  of  the  principle,  which  has  occasionally  been 
made — in  particular  by  Mr.  Boys,  in  what  he  designates  a 
Key  to  the  Book  of  Psalms,  and  more  recently  adopted  by 
Dr.  Forbes.  By  this  more  extended  application  of  the  prin 
ciple,  whole  chapters,  and  passages  long  enough  to  form  a 
chapter,  are  treated  as  specimens  of  the  introverted  parallel- 
elism.  The  entire  Epistle  of  Philemon  is  held  to  be  con 
structed  on  this  principle — the  two  verses  at  the  centre  (ver. 
15,  16)  having  something  in  common,  viz.,  one  and  the  same 
subject,  Onesimus;  and  then  the  respective  verses  on  each 
side,  as  they  recede  from  this  centre,  possessing  what  is 


204  THE  SUBJECT  OF  PARALLELISM. 

thought  to  render  them  parallel  one  to  another.  The  merest 
glance  over  the  arrangement  is  sufficient  to  convince  any  un 
biassed  mind  that  it  is  altogether  fanciful;  since  what  are 
called  parallel  verses  have  often  so  little  in  common,  that  no 
one,  who  was  not  in  search  of  resemblances,  would  ever  have 
thought  of  them.  But  even  if  there  had  been  more  to  coun 
tenance  the  idea  in  appearance,  we  should  still  have  rejected 
it.  The  very  conception  of  such  complicated  and  artificial 
structures  has  something  palpably  and  painfully  unnatural 
about  it,  and  is  utterly  opposed  to  the  simplicity,  which  we 
cannot  but  associate  with  the  epistolary  and  didactic  parts  of 
Scripture.  It  is  as  if  one  should  compress  the  free  and  spon 
taneous  movements  of  Spirit-stirred  minds  within  bones  of 
steel,  and  make  art,  rather  than  nature,  the  ground-form  of 
the  utterances  of  God's  Spirit.  Such  applications  of  paral 
lelism,  therefore,  must  be  ranked  as  a  vicious  excess — unsound 
in  principle,  and  sure,  in  practice,  to  lead  to  frivolous  conceits. 
Parallelism,  as  already  remarked,  properly  belongs  to  the 
poetical  province,  being  the  simplest  of  the  measured  and  re 
gular  forms  into  which  a  poetical  elevation  throws  the  concep 
tions  and  feelings  which  it  strives  to  give  forth.  If  judiciously 
applied  to  those  portions  of  Scripture  which  partake  of  this 
elevation,  the  beauty  of  the  composition,  and  the  fulness  and 
force  of  the  thoughts  expressed  in  it,  will  be  more  distinctly 
perceived,  and  may  be  more  impressively  set  forth.  But 
when  brought  into  the  province  of  history,  of  epistolary 
writing  or  familiar  discourse,  if  admitted  to  a  place  at  all, 
it  must  be  within  very  narrow  bounds,  and  in  connexion  only 
with  the  simpler  modes  of  construction. 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST.  205 


PART  SECOND. 

DISSERTATIONS    ON    PARTICULAR    SUBJECTS    CONNECTED   WITH 
THE    EXEGESIS    OF   NEW   TESTAMENT   SCRIPTURE. 


I. 


THE  TWO    GENEALOGIES  OF    CHRIST,  GIVEN   RESPECTIVELY  BY  THE 
EVANGELISTS  MATTHEW  AND  LUKE. 

THERE  are  several  marked  and  characteristic  differences 
between  the  two  genealogical  tables  presented  by  the  Evange 
lists  of  the  human  ancestry  of  our  Lord — differences  that  from 
a  very  early  period  have  occasioned  embarrassment  to  inter 
preters,  and  have  often  been  pronounced  inexplicable  dis 
crepancies.  Nor  is  it  only  in  the  things  in  which  they  differ 
that  they  have  given  rise  to  trouble  and  dispute;  but  a  still 
more  perplexing  circumstance,  if  possible,  has  been  found,  in 
a  matter  on  which  they  are,  at  least,  apparently  agreed; 
namely,  that  it  is  with  Joseph,  not  with  Mary,  that  the  ge 
nealogical  descent  of  Jesus  is  formally  connected.  What 
renders  this  the  more  remarkable  is,  that  the  two  Evangelists, 
who  thus  agree  in  dropping  the  name  of  Mary  from  any  os 
tensible  or  direct  connexion  with  the  descent  from  David  and 
Abraham,  are  precisely  those,  who  expressly  record  the  mi 
raculous  conception  of  Jesus,  and  so  provide  an  explicit  testi 
mony  to  the  fact,  that  He  was  strictly  the  Son  only  of  Mary,  and 
not  of  Joseph.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is,  in  some  re 
spects,  the  greater  difficulty  adhering  to  these  tables,  since  it 
touches  the  point  of  our  Lord's  title  to  the  name  and  office  of 
Messiah.  It  is,  therefore,  the  point  to  which  our  attention 
shall  be  primarily  directed,  yet  so  as  not  to  neglect  the  others, 
which  are  also  of  considerable  interest  and  importance. 
18 


206  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST. 

I.  Here  we  observe  at  the  outset,  that  there  are  certain 
preliminary  considerations,  which  ought,  in  all  fairness,  to  be 
borne  in  mind,  and  which,  apart  from  all  minutiae  belonging 
to  the  construction  of  the  genealogies,  go  far  to  determine 
the  chief  historical  question.     It  is  certain,  for  example,  that 
up  till  the  period  of  our  Lord's  birth,  and  even  after  His  death, 
genealogical  registers  were  kept  in  Judea,  both  publicly  and 
privately;  so  that  ample  materials  must  have  existed  for  in 
vestigating  all   that  concerned  the  lineage  of  Jesus.      This 
fact,  like  most  others  in  Gospel  history,  has  been  questioned, 
chiefly  on  the  ground  of  a  statement  of  Julius  Africanus,  who 
wrote,  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  third  century,  a  chronicon,  of 
which  a  fragment  on  this  subject  has  been  preserved  by  Eu- 
sebius  (Hist.  Eccl.  i.  7.)     Africanus  there  reports,  that  Herod, 
conscious  of  the  infelicity  of  his  birth,  and  anxious  to  prevent 
the  possibility  of  detecting  it,  burned  the  public  family  regis 
ters,  "imagining  that  he  should  then  appear  noble,  when  no 
one  could  derive  from  the  public  monuments  the  evidence  of 
a  descent  from  the   patriarchs,  or  the    proselytes,  and   the 
mixed  multitude  that  was  called  georse."     On  what  grounds 
this  statement  was  made,  nothing  is  known ;  nor  does  it  appear, 
that  Africanus  himself  had  any  great  confidence  in  its  histo 
rical  correctness;  for  he  introduces  the  narrative  as  delivered 
by  the  descendants  of  those  who  were  the  kinsmen  of  Jesus, 
u  either  for  the  purpose  of  display  [in  respect  to  their  own 
pedigree,]  or  for  simply  declaring  the  truth;"  and  at  the  close 
introduces  the  qualifying  clause,  "Whether  the  matter  actually 
stood  thus  or  not"  (err*  ouv  oZhro»C»  £^'  tfM«c  £/^«)      '-The 
story  must  be  held  to  be,  if  not  entirely  fabulous,  at  least  a 
great  exaggeration  of  some  lawless  proceedings  on  the  part  of 
Herod  or  his  abettors.     Josephus  is  altogether  silent  respect 
ing  any  such  destructive  measures,  which,  if  they  had  actually 
occurred  to  the  extent  described,  could  scarcely  have  been 
practicable:  more  than  that,  he  expressly  testifies,  that  he 
took  the  materials  of  the  abstract  he  gave  of  his  own  family 
descent  from  those  same  public  registers  (os/ro^r  dyfjtoffiocc 
dvaftrpafjtfjdvyv  evpov,  Vit.  i.  1,)  and  at  a  period  considerably 
later  than  that  of  the  birth  of  Christ.     The  reference,  too,  of 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST.  207 

the  Apostle  Paul  once  and  again  to  genealogies,  as  matters 
with  which  certain  Jewish  teachers  were  wont  needlessly  to 
entangle  themselves  and  others  (1  Tim.  i.  4;  Titus  iii.  14,)  is 
a  sufficient  proof  of  the  plentiful  existence  of  such  documents. 
And  so  also  is  the  reference  made  to  them  in  the  Protevange- 
lium  of  James,  which,  though  a  spurious  production,  is  yet  of 
very  great  antiquity.  There  can,  therefore,  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  of  the  late  existence  of  registers,  or  genealogical  tables, 
public  as  well  as  private ;  and  the  means  must  have  been  ac 
cessible  to  all,  who  had  a  mind  to  examine  the  point,  for  de 
termining  whether  Jesus  was  really  of  the  house  and  lineage 
of  David.  Nor  can  we  doubt,  from  the  nature  and  intensity 
of  the  opposition  made  to  Him,  that,  if  the  evidence  on  this 
point  had  not  been  known  to  be  of  the  most  conclusive  kind, 
the  defect  would  certainly  have  been  discovered,  and  pressed 
to  the  prejudice  of  His  claims.  If  His  title  to  a  Davidic  origin 
was  not  impugned,  the  reason  could  only  be,  that  it  was  in 
capable  of  being  gainsayed. 

It  is  further  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  both  Christ's  title 
to  be  regarded  as  the  Son  of  David,  and  the  evangelical  testi 
mony  in  favour  of  that  title,  by  no  means  rests  exclusively, 
or  even  principally,  upon  the  preservation  in  the  Gospels  of 
the  two  Genealogies.  There  is  much  evidence  besides  upon, 
the  subject,  and  evidence  of  a  more  patent  and  obtrusive  kind. 
In  the  annunciation  of  His  birth  to  the  Virgin,  it  was  declared, 
that  the  throne  of  His  father  David  should  be  given  to  Him — 
implying,  that  simply  as  born  of  her,  He  stood  connected 
with  the  throne  and  family  of  David.  During  the  course  of 
His  public  ministry,  He  allowed  Himself  to  be  openly  ad 
dressed  as  the  Son  of  David  (Matt.  ix.  27,  xv.  22) — again 
implying  both  what  He  Himself  claimed,  and  what  was  com 
monly  believed  respecting  Him.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
St.  Peter  proclaimed  to  the  assembled  thousands,  that  God 
had  raised  Him  up  of  the  fruit  of  David's  loins,  to  sit  upon 
his  throne  (Acts  ii.  30;)  and  in  several  passages  St.  Paul 
represents  Him  as  having  been  the  seed  of  David,  according 
to  the  flesh  (Rom.  i.  3;  2  Tim.  ii.  8;  Acts  xiii.  23.)  Finally, 
in  the  Apocalypse  He  is  designated  "the  root  and  offspring 


208  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST. 

of  David"  (ch.  xxii.  16.)  Most  plain,  therefore,  it  is,  that 
neither  our  Lord  Himself,  nor  His  immediate  followers,  made 
any  secret  of  His  strict  and  proper  relationship  to  the  house 
of  David — itself  a  conclusive  proof,  that  it  had  a  solid  ground 
to  rest  upon,  and  could  challenge  the  fullest  scrutiny.  The 
very  objections  urged  against  Him  may  be  cited  as  evidence; 
for,  while  they  occasionally  grazed  the  border  of  this  important 
point,  they  never  actually  struck  upon  it,  and  so  yielded  a 
virtual  testimony  in  its  support.  It  was  perfectly  understood, 
that  if  He  was  the  Son  of  David,  and  the  heir  to  his  throne, 
He  behooved  to  be  born  at  Bethlehem  (Matt.  ii.  5 ;  John  vii. 
42;)  and  on  this  account  the  objection  was  raised  against 
Jesus,  that  He  was  a  Galilean,  and  came  forth  from  Nazareth, 
whence  nothing  good  in  the  spiritual  sphere  might  be  looked 
for  (John  i.  46,  vii.  52 ;)  but  it  never  took  the  form  of  an  al 
legation  laid,  or  even  a  suspicion  uttered,  against  His  con* 
nexion  by  birth  with  the  house  of  David.  This  is  the  more 
remarkable,  as  His  residence  from  childhood  in  Galilee  gave 
His  adversaries  a  prinia  facie  ground  to  question  it;  doubts 
could  scarcely  fail  to  be  stirred  in  many  minds  on  the  subject; 
and  that  these  doubts  did  not  find  any  audible  utterance  or 
assume  a  tangible  form,  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  con 
clusive  evidence  which  existed  of  His  royal  parentage. 

Still  further,  the  report  of  Hegesippus  concerning  the 
relatives  of  Jesus  in  a  subsequent  generation,  furnishes  a 
collateral  proof,  as  it  clearly  indicates  the  general  and  settled 
belief  of  the  time.  He  states,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius  (Hist. 
Eccl.  iii.  20,)  that  the  grandchildren  of  Judas,  the  brother  of 
Jesus,  were  accused  to  the  Emperor  Domitian,  and  brought 
before  him  for  examination,  because  of  their  reputed  con 
nexion  with  the  royal  line  of  David;  but  that  when  Domitian 
ascertained  their  humble  circumstances,  and  the  spiritual  na 
ture  of  the  kingdom  they  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ,  he  despised 
them  and  sent  them  away.  It  thus  appears,  that  amid  all 
the  circumstances  that  had  become  known  concerning  Christ 
down  to  the  close  of  the  first  century — the  claims  put  forth 
on  the  part  of  His  followers,  and  the  objections  or  surmises 
raised  on  the  part  of  His  adversaries — the  belief  of  His  per 
sonal  relationship  to  the  house  of  David  remained  unshaken. 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST.  209 

The  fact,  therefore,  of  our  Lord's  real  descent  from  David 
must  be  held  as  certain,  whatever  difficulties  concerning  it 
may  hang  around  the  two  genealogical  tables.  The  subject  of 
inquiry  in  respect  to  them  narrows  itself  to  the  point,  how  they 
can  be  made  to  appear  consistent  with  the  truth  of  things, 
and  not  in  antagonism  with  each  other.  There  are  certain 
palpable  differences  between  them,  which  are  fitted  to  suggest 
the  idea  of  their  having  been  drawn  up  on  somewhat  different 
principles ;  and  the  thought  very  naturally  suggests  itself,  that 
if  these  could  only  be  ascertained,  a  satisfactory  explanation 
would  be  found  of  the  diversities  subsisting  between  them. 

II.  Is  this  diversity  of  principle  in  the  construction  of  the 
two  genealogies  to  be  sought — as  regards  the  main  point  at 
issue — in  the  one  evangelist  presenting  the  genealogy  of  Jesus 
through  Joseph  the  reputed  and  legal  father,  and  the  other 
through  Mary  the  only  real  parent,  according  to  the  flesh? 
If  this  were  a  practicable  mode — exegetically  considered — 
of  understanding  what  is  written,  it  would,  no  doubt,  present 
a  comparatively  natural  and  easy  solution  of  the  greater  dif 
ferences.  But  so  far  is  it  from  appearing  on  the  face  of  the 
language,  that  it  seems  never  so  much  as  to  have  occurred  to 
the  earlier  writers,  who  had  their  minds  specially  directed  to 
the  subject.  With  one  consent  they  referred  both  genealogies 
to  Joseph,  and  appear  to  have  been  little  troubled  by  the  ab 
sence  of  any  specific  mention  of  the  lineage  of  Mary.  Afri- 
carms,  who  made  the  subject  a  matter  of  very  careful  investi 
gation,  makes  no  allusion  to  this  point,  as  tending  to  create 
in  his  mind  any  embarrassment.  Jerome,  indeed,  refers  to 
it;  but  thinks  it  enough  to  say,  that  Joseph's  relation  to  the 
tribe  of  Judah  and  the  house  of  David  determined  also  Mary's, 
since  by  the  law  people  were  obliged  to  marry  from  among 
their  own  tribe:1 — although  he  could  scarcely  be  ignorant, 

1  Qurerat  diligens  lector  et  dicat:  Quum  Joseph  non  sit  pater  Domini 
Salvatoris,  quid  pertinet  ad  Dominum  generationis  ordo  deductus  usque  ad 
Joseph  ?  Cui  respondebimus  primum,  non  esse  consuetudinem  Scripturarum, 
ut  mulierum  in  generationibus  ordo  texatur.  Deinde,  ex  una  tribu  fuisse 
Joseph  et  Mariana;  unde  ex  Lege  earn  accipere  cogebatur  ut  propinquam — 
In  Matt.  i.  18. 

18* 


210  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST. 

that  however  customary  this  might  be,  there  is  no  express 
enactment  upon  the  subject;  and,  indeed,  in  the  case  of  the 
daughters  of  Zelophehad,  the  legislation  actually  made  pro 
ceeded  upon  the  usual  liberty  of  the  females  to  marry  into 
any  tribe,  and  prescribed  a  limit  in  their  case,  and  cases  of  a 
similar  kind,  only  for  the  sake  of  perpetuating  the  inheritance. 
When  there  was  nothing  peculiar  in  this  respect,  it  was  per 
fectly  allowable,  and  not  uncommon,  for  the  husband  to  belong 
to  one  tribe  and  the  wife  to  another.  In  the  Gospel  age,  also, 
when  remnants  of  all  the  tribes  were  thrown  together,  such 
intermarriages  would  naturally  be  more  frequent.  Augustine, 
the  contemporary  of  Jerome,  goes,  somewhat  singularly,  into 
the  opposite  extreme ;  and  while  of  opinion  that  Mary  must 
have  had  some  connexion  (he  does  not  state  what)  with  the 
house  of  David,  he  is  rather  disposed  to  lay  stress  upon  her 
relationship  to  Elizabeth,  and  h.er  connexion  with  the  house 
of  Aaron ;  for,  he  says,  "it  must  be  held  most  firmly,  that  the 
flesh  of  Christ  was  propagated  from  both  stems,  that  alike  of 
the  kings  and  of  the  priests,  the  personages  in  whom  among 
the  Hebrews  was  figured  that  mystic  unction  (namely,  chrism,) 
whence  the  name  of  Christ  beams  forth,  so  long  before  also 
pre-intimated  by  that  most  evident  sign.''1  Chrysostom,  in 
his  second  homily  on  St.  Matthew,  reverts  to  Jerome's  mode 
of  explanation,  and  puts  it  in  a  still  stronger  form.  He  says, 
"not  only  was  it  not  lawful  to  marry  from  another  tribe,  but 
not  even  from  another  family  (obos  dxb  ~aTf)c<1<;  lr^o«c;)  that 
is,"  he  adds,  "kindred  (<jv-ffevsia$")  This  is  the  chief  ex 
planation  he  gives,  although  he  also  points  to  the  words  used 
by  the  angel  Gabriel,  of  whom  it  is  said,  that  he  was  sent  to 
ua  virgin  espoused  to  a  man  whose  name  was  Joseph,  of  the 
house  of  David" — understanding  the  latter  expression,  "of 
the  house  of  David,"  to  refer,  not  to  Joseph  the  immediate, 
but  to  Mary  the  remote,  antecedent;  in  which  he  is  not  fol- 

1  Firmissime  tenendum  est  camera  Christ!  ex  utroque  genere  propagntam, 
et  regum  scilicet  et  sacerdotum,  in  quibus  personis  apud  ilium  populum 
Hebracorum  etiam  mystica  unctio  figurabatur,  id  est,  chrisma,  unde  Cbristi 
nomen  elucet,  tanto  ante  etiam  ilia  evidentissima  significatione  pnenuntiatum. 
— De  Consensu  Evang.  ii.  2. 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST.  211 

lowed  by  the  better  class  of  interpreters.  He  indicates  no 
doubt,  however,  any  more  than  the  other  writers  of  early  times, 
that  both  genealogies  bore  respect  to  the  ancestry  of  Joseph. 
This  general  agreement,  for  so  long  a  time,  as  to  the  fact 
of  Joseph's  lineage  being  exhibited  in  both  tables — the  absence 
of  any  idea,  that  either  of  them  did,  or  by  possibility  might 
be  understood,  to  trace  the  descent  of  Mary,  undoubtedly  af 
fords  a  strong  presumption  against  the  idea  itself,  as  proceed 
ing  on  a  too  subtle  or  somewhat  forced  interpretation  of  the 
text.  It  was  only  about  the  period  of  the  Reformation  that 
the  opinion  seems  to  have  been  distinctly  brought  out  and 
advocated,  of  Mary's  genealogy  being  given  in  Luke,  and 
Joseph's  in  Matthew — the  one  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  Jews, 
who,  in  matters  of  this  description,  made  account  only  of 
males;  and  the  other  for  the  satisfaction  of  mankind  in  gene 
ral,  who  might  seek  to  know  the  lineage  of  Jesus,  not  through 
his  reputed  or  legal  father,  but  through  his  one  real  earthly 
parent.  Calvin  refers  to  it  as  a  view  which  had  its  known 
advocates  in  his  day,  but  rejects  it  as  untenable ;  and,  though 
it  has  since  numbered  many  learned  names  on  its  side — those, 
among  others,  of  Osiander,  Calov,  Spanheim,  Lightfoot,  Ro- 
senmuller,  Paulus,  Kuinoel — yet  it  must  be  held  to  be  without 
any  just  foundation  in  the  text,  and  even  to  do  violence  to  its 
plain  import.  The  view  is  based  on  the  words  of  the  Evange 
list  Luke,  when  introducing  the  subject  of  the  genealogy, 
"And  Jesus  Himself  was  about  thirty  years  of  age  when  be 
ginning  (viz.  His  ministry,)  being,  as  was  supposed,  the  Son 
of  Joseph,  who  was  the  son  of  Eli,"  etc.  (o>v,  &z  Jvo^/J'sro, 
vlb~  'Icoffir^j  roil  '///*.)  But  the  words,  taken  in  their  natural 
and  obvious  sense,  connect  Jesus  with  Joseph  as  his  reputed 
father,  and  then  this  Joseph  with  H'eli,  as  his  father.  The 
native  import  and  bearing  of  the  d>c  evo/^sro,  was  precisely 
given  by  Euthymius,  d»c  soozzt  ro?c  ' loodaio^-  a>z  jap  37  dAy- 
Osca  er/sv*  o'jx  yjv  u*bz  a?jTOrj — in  the  common  reckoning  of 
the  Jews  He  was  Joseph's  Son,  but  He  was  not  so  in  reality. 
The  latter  idea,  however,  was  only  implied,  not  distinctly 
stated,  in  the  Evangelist's  expression.  If  the  meaning  had 
been :  the  Son,  as  was  supposed,  of  Joseph,  but  in  reality  of 


212  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST. 

Eli,  that  is  Eli's  grandson  (through  Mary  the  daughter  of 
Eli,) — the  passage  would  have  required  to  run  (as  justly  stated 
by  Meyer,)  o»v,  cb~  tusv  ivopi^ero  olb^  '/atfftyp,  ourco^  dk  Ma- 
[Hf/.z,  rorj  ///;,  or  something  similar.  It  is  possible  enough, 
and  may  even  be  deemed  probable,  that  the  genealogies  of 
Mary  and  Joseph  coincided  at  a  comparatively  near  point, 
but  this  can  only  be  matter  of  probable  conjecture,  or,  at 
most,  natural  inference;  for,  as  regards  the  genealogy  itself 
of  St.  Luke,  we  have  no  direct  notice  of  Mary's  pedigree,  but 
only  of  Joseph's. 

To  our  view,  the  silence  regarding  Mary  in  the  genealogi 
cal  tables,  and  the  stress  that  is  laid  in  the  Gospels  upon  Jo 
seph's  connexion  with  the  house  of  David,  certainly  seems 
strange.  It  appears  to  imply,  that  the  Davidic  descent  of  Jo 
seph  somehow  carried  that  of  Christ  along  with  it ;  for  the 
genealogies  are  produced  as  evidence  of  that  very  point.  In 
much  the  same  way,  Joseph,  when  meditating  the  repudiation 
of  the  Virgin,  is  addressed  by  the  angel  in  terms  that  make 
special  reference  to  his  royal  descent, — "Joseph,  thou  son  of 
David"  (Matt.  i.  20;)  and,  again,  when  the  reason  is  assigned 
for  the  journey  to  Bethlehem,  which  led  to  the  birth  of  Jesus 
there,  it  was  because,  not  Mary,  but  Joseph,  was  of  the  house 
and  lineage  of  David  (Luke  ii.  4.)  How  is  this  to  be  ex 
plained?  Does  the  termination  of  Joseph's  genealogy  really 
involve  and  carry  along  with  it  that  of  Mary's  and  Christ's? 
So  Augustine  perceived,  and  in  a  profound  remark  expressed, 
when  commenting  on  the  designation  of  Joseph  and  Mary  by 
St.  Luke  as  the  parents  of  Jesus.  "Since,  therefore,'.'  says 
he,  "the  Evangelist  himself  relates  that  Christ  was  born,  not 
from  intercourse  with  Joseph,  but  of  Mary,  as  a  virgin,  whence 
should  he  call  him  (Joseph)  His  father — unless  we  rightly  un 
derstand,  both  that  he  was  the  husband  of  Mary,  without  car 
nal  intercourse,  by  the  bond  simply  of  the  marriage-tie;  and 
that  he  was  on  this  account  also  Christ's  father,  Christ  being 
born  of  his  wife,  in  a  manner  far  more  intimate  than  if  He 
had  been  adopted  from  another  family  ?  And  on  this  ground," 
he  adds,  "even  if  any  one  should  be  able  to  prove  that  Mary 
had  no  blood-relationship  to  David,  it  was  competent  to  hold 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST.  213 

Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  David,  for  the  very  same  reason  that  Jo 
seph  was  entitled  to  be  called  His  father." l  This  view,  though 
not  formally  referred  to  Augustine,  has  been  taken  up  and 
ably  expounded  by  Delitzsch,  in  an  article  on  the  genealogies 
in  Rudelbach's  Zeitschrift  for  1850,  p.  581,  sq.  He  holds 
that,  in  consequence  of  the  Divine  revelation  made  to  Joseph, 
and  his  entire  acquiescence  in  the  arrangements  announced  to 
him,  Jesus  was  really  the  fruit  of  his  marriage,  and,  as  such, 
his  Son.  Joseph  acknowledged  and  owned  the  child,  not,  in 
deed,  as  begotten  of  his  body,  but  as  a  sacred  gift,  which  God 
had  most  wonderfully  granted  to  him  through  his  wife.  In 
all  cases  children  are  God's  gifts ;  but  this  child  was  so  in  the 
most  peculiar  sense,  there  being  an  exclusion  of  human  agency, 
and  the  direct  intervention  of  the  Divine.  Now,  if  Jesus  was 
the  Son  of  Joseph,  in  his  married  relation,  for  the  same  rea 
son  also  lie  was  the  Son  of  David;  for  He  was  born  to  a  de 
scendant  of  the  house  of  David — was  conceived  and  born  of  a 
virgin,  who,  simply  from  her  espousals  to  Joseph,  was  already 
introduced  into  the  house  of  David,  and,  within  that  house,  as 
Joseph's  spouse,  brought  forth  her  child.  So  the  Evangelist 
Matthew  contemplated  the  matter;  for,  according  to  the  law 
and  the  established  convictions  of  Israel,  all  depended  upon 
Joseph's  descent  from  David,  not  upon  Mary's;  and,  by  vir 
tue  simply  of  his  relation  to  Joseph,  Jesus  was  born  in  the 
house  of  David,  was  therefore  the  child  of  a  Davidic  person, 
and  so  was  justly  held  to  have  sprung  out  of  the  house  of 
David. 

Such  is  the  view  of  Delitzsch,  which  is  undoubtedly  in  ac 
cordance  with  Jewish  notions  on  the  subject,  and  rests  upon  a 
solid  basis  of  truth;  fcince  Mary,  before  the  birth  of  the  child, 
had  actually,  and  by  Divine  ordination,  become  the  spouse  of 

1  Cum  igitur  ipse  narret,  non  ex  concubitu  Joseph,  sed  ex  Maria  virgine 
natum  Christum;  uncle  eum  patrem  ejus  appellat,  nisi  quia  et  virum  Marioe 
recte  intelligimus  sine  commixtione  carnis,  ipsa  copulatione  conjugii;  et  ob 
hoc  etiam  Christi  patrem  multo  conjunctius,  qui  ex  ejus  conjuge  natus  sit, 
quam  si  e^set  aliunde  adoptatus?  Ac  per  hoc,  etiam  si  demonstrare.  aliquis 
posset,  Mariam  ex  David  nullam  consanguinitatis  originem  ducere,  sat  erat 
secundum  istam  rationem  accipere  Christum  filium  David,  qua  ratione  etiam 
Joseph  pater  ejus  recte  appellatus  est. — De  Consensu  Evartg.  ii.  1. 


214  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST. 

Joseph,  so  that  what  was  hers,  through  her  became  also  her 
husband's.  Yet,  as  God's  work  is  ever  perfect — not  in  de 
sign  and  nature  merely,  but  in  the  way  and  manner  also  of 
its  accomplishment — so  doubtless  it  was  here.  We  have  the 
best  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  relationship  of  Mary,  im 
mediately  to  Joseph,  and  remotely  to  the  house  of  David,  was 
such,  and  so  well  known,  that  the  genealogy  of  the  one,  at  a 
point  comparatively  near,  was  understood  to  be  the  genealogy 
also  of  the  other.  This  relationship  on  Mary's  part  seems 
plainly  taken  for  granted  by  the  angel,  who  announced  the 
conception  and  birth  of  the  child,  when  he  said,  "And  the 
Lord  God  shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of  His  father  Da 
vid," — an  announcement  that  was  made  to  her  before  her 
marriage  to  Joseph,  before  she  could  be  sure  of  such  a  mar 
riage  ever  being  consummated,  and  so  implying  that,  simply 
as  born  of  her,  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  child 
should  stand  in  a  filial  relation  to  David.  The  statements  in 
other  parts  of  Scripture,  designating  Christ  as,  beyond  dispute, 
of  the  seed  of  David,  are  also  to  be  taken  into  account;  so 
that,  if  the  genealogies  do  not  of  themselves  establish  the  per 
sonal  relation  of  Mary  to  the  house  of  David,  they  may  be 
said  to  involve  it;  since,  when  viewed  in  connexion  with  the 
entire  representation  of  the  sacred  writers,  they  seem  to  pro 
ceed  on  the  ground  of  a  common  interest  in  this  respect  be 
longing  to  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  to  Jesus  through  them. 
Certain  other  probabilities  will  also  present  themselves  as  we 
proceed. 

III.  But,  meanwhile,  difficulties  start  up  from  the  ground 
we  have  already  won.  For,  if  the  two  genealogical  tables  are 
both  those  of  Joseph's  proper  pedigree,  how  should  they  diifer 
at  so  many  points  from  each  other — differ,  even  in  respect  to 
the  immediate  father  of  Joseph — and  differ  so  regularly  in  the 
latter  divisions,  that  between  David  and  Christ  they  present 
only  two  names  in  common?  This  is  a  difficulty,  which  has 
long  exercised  the  ingenuity  of  interpreters,  and  has  given 
rise  to  a  variety  of  schemes.  It  would  occupy  a  considerable 
time  to  recount  all  these,  and  could  serve  no  valuable  purpose. 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST.  215 

We  shall  simply  state  what  we  deem  to  be  the  correct  expla 
nation  of  the  matter — prefacing  it  however  by  a  few  conside 
rations,  which  ought  to  be  kept  in  view  by  those  who  would 
arrive  at  right  conclusions  on  the  subject.  The  first  is,  that 
in  these,  as  in  genealogical  tables  generally,  there  may  be  se 
veral  diversities  without  any  actual  incorrectness.  This  holds 
of  such  tables  generally,  and  arises  from  the  diversity  of  names 
sometimes  borne  by  individuals  mentioned  in  them,  and  from 
various  circumstances  and  relations  occurring  to  alter  in  some 
respect  the  natural  course  of  descent,  and  thereby  leaving 
room  for  one  genealogist  departing  from  the  exact  route  or 
nomenclature  of  another.  It  is  perfectly  well  known,  by  those 
who  are  at  all  acquainted  with  Jewish  genealogies,  how  much 
this  is  the  case;  and  the  reference  of  the  apostle  to  disputes 
in  his  day  about  endless  genealogies  (1  Tim.  i.  4;  Tit.  iii.  9,) 
clearly  implies,  that  the  circumstances  just  noticed  were  wont 
to  involve  considerable  diversity  in  details,  not  readily  settled 
or  explained.  It  may  well  be  expected,  therefore,  especially 
at  this  distance  of  time,  that  there  should  be  points  of  diver 
gence  in  the  two  tables  before  us,  either  altogether  inexplica 
ble  now,  or  admitting  of  explanation  only  by  the  help  of  sup 
positions  which  can  at  most  be  considered  only  as  probable. 
A  more  full  and  intimate  knowledge  of  the  particulars  might 
have  made  all  perfectly  plain. 

Another  consideration  to  be  kept  in  mind  is,  that  whatever 
precise  form  the  genealogical  tables  might  assume — whether 
they  traced  the  lineage  in  an  ascending  or  a  descending  order — 
whether  each  successive  generation  is  presented  to  our  view 
as  begotten  by  the  preceding,  or  as  standing  to  this  in  the  re 
lation  of  a  son  to  a  father — in  either  case  alike  the  table  is  to 
be  regarded  as  possessing  the  same  character;  and  the  same 
allowances  or  qualifications  that  may  have  to  be  made  in  the 
one  case,  are  also  quite  allowable  in  the  other.  Mistakes 
and  false  theories  have  arisen  from  the  neglect  of  this  con 
sideration.  It  was  thus,  indeed,  that  Julius  Africanus  was 
misled,  and  became  the  instrument  of  misleading  many  others 
regarding  the  principles  on  which  the  two  tables  were  con 
structed,  by  supposing  that  the  phrase  in  Matthew,  'such  a 


216  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST. 

one  begat  such  another,'  is  of  a  stricter  kind  than  the  phrase 
in  Luke,  'such  a  one  was  the  son  of  another;'  he  was  of 
opinion  that  the  former  always  denoted  a  natural  connexion 
as  of  parent  and  child,  while  the  latter  might  include  other 
connexions — sons  by  adoption,  or  by  marriage,  or  by  legal 
standing,  as  the  case  might  be.  In  relftty,  however,  the  He 
brews  observed  no  distinction  of  the  krod;  they  were  accus 
tomed  to  use  both  forms  of  expression  in  the  same  way;  and 
the  one  as  well  as  the  other  was  sometimes  applied  to  denote, 
not  descendants  by  actual  procreation,  but  the  next  of  kin,  or 
descendants  in  the  wider  sense.  The  table  itself  in  Matthew's 
Gospel  affords  conclusive  evidence  of  this;  for  it  has  "  Joram 
begat  Ozias,"  or  Uzziah,  although  we  know  for  certain  that 
three  links  of  the  chain  are  there  dropt  out,  and  that  Joram 
begat  Ahaziah,  then  Ahaziah  Jehoash,  and  Jehoash  Uzziah. 
As  a  proof  of  the  freedom  sometimes  used  in  such  cases,  we 
may  point  to  the  statements  in  Gen.  xlvi.  26 ;  Ex.  i.  5,  where 
Jacob  is  himself  included  among  those  that  came  out  of  his 
loins;1  and  to  Gen.  x.  13,  14,  "  Canaan  begat  Sidon,  his  first 
born,  and  Heth,  and  the  Jebusite,  and  the  Amorite,"  etc., — 
where  evidently  whole  races  are  said  to  have  been  begotten  by 
the  person  who  was  no  further  related  to  them  than  that  he 

1  See,  for  example,  the  Jewish  Commentate)!'  Raphall,  on  Gen.  xlvi.  26, 
•who,  after  referring  to  the  opinions  of  other  Jewish  authorities,  and  showing 
how  the  66  persons  said  to  have  ccme  out  of  Jacob's  loins  were  made  up  (32 
by  Leah,  16  by  Zilpah,  11  by  Rachel,  7  by  Bilhah,)  thus  sums  up:  "Now, 
as  the  family  of  Leah  is  said  to  consist  of  33,  though  only  32  are  enumerated, 
and  as  the  former  number  would  give  us  67  persons  (which  the  Septuagint 
actually  has,)  whereas  the  text  expressly  declares,  that  the  number  of  those 
who  proceeded  from  Jacob's  loins  were  06,  and  no  more:  And  as,  moreover, 
the  only  members  of  Jacob's  family  whom  the  text  mentions  as  being  in 
Egypt  were  three,  namely,  Joseph,  and  his  two  sons;  and  as  these  three,  with 
the  66  above  named,  are  only  69,  whereas  the  text  declares,  that  all  the 
persons  of  the  house  of  Jacob  who  came  into  Egypt  were  70;  and  as  Jacob 
must,  of  course,  be  considered  as  a  member  of  his  own  house,  it  follows,  that 
the  70th  person  who  came,  can  have  been  no  other  than  Jacob  himself. 
And  if  this  be  so,  then  the  33d  person  numbered  with,  but  not  among,  the 
descendants  of  Leah,  can  also  have  been  no  other  than  Jacob ;  for  if  it  had 
been  any  other  person,  the  total  number  of  Jacob's  house  would  have  been  71 
— contrary  to  the  text,  since  Jacob  can  in  no  wise  be  excluded  from  his  own 
house." 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST.  217 

was  their  common  progenitor.  We  even  occasionally  find 
cities  or  districts  associated  in  the  same  way  with  an  indivi 
dual  as  their  parent;  thus  in  1  Chron.  ii.  50,  "Shobal  the 
father  of  Kirjath-jearim,  Salma  the  father  of  Bethlehem,  Ha- 
reph  the  father  of  Beth-Gader."  And  not  only  did  the  Le- 
virate  law  afford  occasions  of  pretty  frequent  occurrence,  when 
a  person  must  have  had  children  reckoned  to  him  that  were 
not  strictly  his  own,  but  women  also — for  example,  Sarah  and 
Ilachel — are  represented  as  speaking  of  the  possibility  of  ob 
taining  children  born  to  them  through  their  handmaids  (Gen. 
xvi.  2,  xxx.  3.) 

Such  being  the  case,  there  is  plainly  nothing  in  the  way  of 
our  holding,  that  the  table  of  Matthew  may,  equally  with  that 
of  Luke,  admit  of  relationships  being  introduced  not  of  the 
nearest  degree ;  nor,  further,  any  thing,  so  far  as  form  is  con 
cerned,  to  render  the  position  untenable,  that  in  the  one  we 
may  have  the  succession  in  the  strictly  royal  line,  the  legal 
heirs  to  the  throne  of  David  (Matthew's,)  and  in  the  other 
(Luke's)  the  succession  of  our  Lord's  real  parentage  up  to 
David.  So  that,  were  this  view  to  be  accepted,  we  should 
have  Christ's  legal  right  to  the  kingdom  established,  by  the 
list  in  the  one  table ;  and  by  that  of  the  other,  the  direct  chain 
which  connected  Him  with  the  person  of  David.  This  is  sub 
stantially  the  view  that  was  adopted  by  Calvin,  though  not 
originated;  for  he  refers  to  some  as  preceding  him  in  the  same 
view.  It  was  first,  however,  fully  brought  out,  and  vindicated 
against  the  errors  involved  in  the  current  belief,  by  Grotius. 
In  opposition  to  that  belief,  which  owed  its  general  prevalence 
to  the  authority  of  Africanus — the  belief  that  in  St.  Matthew 
we  have  the  natural,  and  in  Luke  the  legal,  descent — Grotius 
remarks,  "For  myself,  guided,  if  I  mistake  not,  by  very  clear, 
and  not  fanciful  grounds,  I  am  fully  convinced,  that  Matthew 
has  respect  to  the  legal  succession.  For  he  recounts  those  who 
obtained  the  kingdom  without  the  intermixture  of  a  private 
name.  Then  Jechonias,  he  says,  begot  Salathiel.  But  it  was 
not  doubtfully  intimated  by  Jeremiah,  under  the  command  of 
God,  that  Jechoniah,  on  account  of  his  sins,  should  die  with 
out  children  (ch.  xxii.  30.)  Wherefore,  since  Luke  assigns 
19 


218  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST. 

Neri  as  the  father  of  the  same  Salathiel,  a  private  man,  -while 
Matthew  gives  Jechoniah,  the  most  obvious  inference  is,  that 
Luke  has  respect  to  the  right  of  consanguinity,  Matthew  to 
the  right  of  succession,  and  especially  the  right  to  the  throne — 
which  right,  since  Jechoniah  died  without  issue,  devolved,  by 
legitimate  order,  upon  Salathiel,  the  head  of  the  family  of 
Nathan.  For  among  the  sons  of  David  Nathan  came  next 
to  Solomon." 

This  view  has  lately  been  taken  up,  and  at  great  length,  as 
well  as  in  a  most  judicious  and  scholarly  manner,  wrought  out 
by  Lord  Arthur  Hervey,  in  a  separate  volume.     The  work  as 
a  whole  is  deserving  of  careful  perusal.     On  this  particular 
part  of  the  subject  he  reasons  somewhat  as  follows: — First  of 
all,  since  St.  Matthew's  table  gives  the  royal  successions,  as 
far  as  they  go,  one  can  scarcely  conceive  why  another  table 
should  have  been  given,  unless  it  were  that  the  actual  parent 
age  of  Joseph  did  not  properly  coincide  with  that.     If  Joseph's 
direct  ancestors,  and  Solomon's  direct  successors,  had  run  in 
one  line,  there  had   been  no   need  for  another  line;   since, 
having  already  the  most  honourable  line  of  descent,  there 
could  have  been  no  inducement  to  make  out  an  inferior  one. 
But,  on  the  supposition  that  a  failure  took  place  in  Solomon's 
line,  and  that  the  offspring  of  Nathan  (the  next  son  of  David) 
then  came  to  be  the  legal  heirs  to  the  throne,  another  table 
was  required  to  show,  along  with  the  succession  to  the  inhe 
ritance,  the  real  parentage  throughout.     A  second  considera 
tion  is  derived  from  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  already  noticed, 
in  which  it  was  declared  concerning  Jehoiakim,  "He   shall 
have  none  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David,"  (ch.  xxxvi.  30;) 
and  again,  of  Jehoiachin  or  Jechoniah,  the  son,  who  was  de 
throned  after  being  for  a  few   months   acknowledged  king, 
"  Write  ye  this  man  childless,  for  no  man  of  his  seed  shall 
prosper,  sitting  upon  the  throne  of  David,  and  ruling   any 
more  in  Judah."     After  such  explicit  declarations,  it  is  not 
conceivable  that  these  men  should  yet  have  been  the  parents 
of  a  seed,  out  of  which  was  at  last   to   spring   the   ultimate 
possessor  of  David's  throne.     A  third  consideration  is  sup 
plied  by  the  names  found  in  both  tables  immediately  after 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST.  210 

Jehoiacliin.  It  was  precisely  there  that  the  lineal  descent 
from  Solomon  was  broken;  and  there,  accordingly,  the  two 
tables  again  coincide;  for  the  next  two  generations  the  names 
Salathiel  and  Zerubabel  occur  alike  in  both  tables — brought 
in,  we  may  reasonably  suppose,  from  Nathan's  line,  to  supply 
the  place  of  Solomon's,  when  it  became  defunct,  and  so  are 
connected  with  Solomon's  line  by  Matthew,  but  with  Nathan's 
by  Luke.  So  that,  the  line  being  traced  by  one  Evangelist 
through  Solomon,  by  the  other  through  Nathan,  the  double 
object  is  served,  of  showing  Christ  to  be  at  once  David's  son 
and  Solomon's  heir,  the  latter  being  the  type  of  Christ  as 
David's  immediate  son  and  heir.  And  thus  also  the  genea 
logy  of  the  one  Evangelist  supplements  that  of  the  other,  by 
showing  the  validity  of  the  right  of  succession  as  traced  by 
Matthew,  since  Joseph  was  Solomon's  heir  only  by  being  Na 
than's  descendant. 

A  collateral  confirmation  is  obtained  for  this  view  in  cer 
tain  double  genealogies  which  occur  in  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures ;  the  one  having  respect  to  the  parentage,  the  other 
to  the  inheritance.  One  of  the  most  remarkable  of  these  is 
that  of  Jair,  who,  in  1  Chron.  ii.,  has  his  genealogy  ranked 
with  the  house  of  Judah,  being  the  son  of  Segub,  the  son  of 
Hezron,  the  son  of  Pharez,  the  son  of  Judah.  By  Moses, 
however,  he  is  always  called  the  son  of  Manasseh  (Num. 
xxxii.  41;  Deut.  iii.  14,  15;)  and  is  represented  as  having 
come  to  the  possession  of  a  number  of  small  towns  in  Gilead, 
which  he  called  Havoth- Jair,  i.  e.,  the  towns  of  Jair.  A  no 
tice  in  the  genealogy  of  1  Chron.  ii.  22,  23,  explains  the 
discrepancy.  We  there  learn  that  Hezron,  his  grandfather, 
in  his  old  age  married  the  daughter  of  Machir,  the  son  of 
Manasseh,  who  bare  him  Segub,  and  that  Segub  begat  Jair ; 
while  Ashur,  another  son  by  the  same  marriage,  had  his  inhe 
ritance  in  Judah.  So  that  Jair,  by  his  real  parentage,  was  a 
descendant  of  Judah ;  though,  in  respect  to  his  inheritance, 
and  no  doubt  in  the  reckoning  of  the  public  registers,  he  was 
of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh.  Another  example  is  found  in  the 
case  of  Caleb,  who,  in  the  earlier  records,  is  always  called 
the  son  of  Jephunneh,  (Num.  xiii.  6,  xiv.  6,  etc.,)  and  is  reck- 


220  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OP  CHRIST. 

oned  of  the  tribe  of  Judah;  while  yet,  it  would  seem,  he  did 
not  originally  and  properly  belong  to  that  tribe:  for,  in  Josh, 
xiv.  14,  he  is  called  "  Caleb  the  son  of  Jephunneh  the  Kene- 
zite"  and  in  ch.  xv.  13,  it  is  said  that  Joshua  "gave  him  a 
part  among  the  children  of  Judah,  according  to  the  command 
ment  of  the  Lord  to  Joshua."  If  he  had  by  birth  belonged 
to  that  tribe,  there  should  have  been  no  need  for  a  special 
commandment  appointing  his  inheritance  to  be  given  out  of 
•what  felHo  that  tribe;  this  would  have  happened  to  him  as  a 
matter  of  course;  and  both,  therefore,  on  this  account,  and 
from  his  being  called  a  Kenezite,  we  are  led  to  infer,  that, 
not  by  birth,  but  by  adoption,  he  had  his  place  and  portion 
fixed  in  the  tribe  of  Judah.  But,  in  order  to  this,  he  must  be 
reckoned  to  some  particular  family  of  that  tribe ;  and  accord 
ingly,  in  the  public  genealogy  given  in  1  Chron.  ii.  18-20, 
the  paternity  of  Jephunneh  is  dropt,  and  that  of  Hezron,  the 
son  of  Pharez,  the  son  of  Judah,  put  in  its  stead:  "And 
Caleb,  the  son  of  Hezron,  begat  children  of  Azubah,  his  wife, 
and  of  Jerioth,"  etc.  It  is  probable  that  one  or  other  of 
these  wives  belonged  to  the  family  of  Hezron,  and  that  Caleb 
became,  by  marriage,  connected  with  it;  while  afterwards,  on 
account  of  his  steady  faith  and  resolute  behaviour,  he  had 
the  honour  conferred  on  him  of  a  special  allotment  in  the 
tribe  of  Judah.  We  have  thus  the  interesting  fact  brought 
out,  through  these  comparatively  dry  details,  that  Caleb  was 
originally  a  stranger,  probably  a  native  of  Egypt,  or  an  Arab 
of  the  Desert,  but  that  he  joined  himself  to  the  Lord's  people, 
and  was  not  only  counted  of  the  seed  of  Jacob,  but  became 
one  of  the  most  distinguished  heads  of  its  chief  tribe. 

A  still  further  proof  in  support  of  the  principles  supposed 
to  be  involved  in  the  construction  of  the  two  tables,  as  to  the 
points  now  under  consideration,  is  found  in  the  recurrence  of 
certain  names  in  both  of  them  during  the  period  subsequent 
to  the  captivity.  In  St.  Luke's  list  the  name  of  Nathan's  son 
is  Matthata,  (ver.  31  ;)  another  son,  in  the  eleventh  genera 
tion,  was  called  Matthat,  (ver.  29;)  and,  between  Salathiel 
and  Joseph,  the  name  of  Matthias  occurs  twice,  (ver.  25,  26,) 
and  that  of  Matthat  once,  (ver.  24;)  all  but  different  modifi- 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OP  CHRIST.  221 

cations  of  the  original  name  Nathan,  (from  \ty  ,  he  gave,)  and 
so  affording  internal  evidence  of  the  genealogy  being  really 
that  of  Nathan's  line.  In  the  other  table,  we  find  Matthan, 
(the  same  person,  in  all  probability,  as  Luke's  Matthat,)  in 
the  third  generation  before  Joseph ;  and,  at  the  same  time, 
several  names  taken  with  little  alteration  from  the  royal 
household  of  former  times — Eliakim,  Zadok  (Zedekiah,) 
Achim,  (an  abbreviation  of  Jehoiachim;)  as  if,  while  the  line 
age  in  this  part  was  really  that  of  Nathan,  there  was  an  effort 
to  keep  up  the  connexion  with  the  latter  days  of  the  elder 
branch,  the  line  of  royal  succession  down  to  the  period  of  the 
exile.  The  descendants  of  Nathan,  who  afterwards  stepped 
into  their  place  in  the  genealogy,  though  not  in  the  kingdom, 
seemed,  by  the  very  names  they  assumed,  to  be  conscious  of 
their  peculiar  relationship  to  Solomon's  house,  and  desirous  of 
indicating  their  claim  to  the  throne. 

This  is  all  quite  natural;  and  it  affords  a  very  probable 
explanation  at  once  of  the  agreements  and  the  differences  be 
tween  the  two  genealogical  tables.  Now  it  only  requires  one 
or  two  very  natural  suppositions  to  bring  the  closing  parts  of 
the  tables  into  correspondence;  for,  on  the  supposition  that 
the  Matthan  of  St.  Matthew  is  the  same  with  the  Matthat  of 
St.  Luke,  (of  which  there  can  be  little  doubt,)  then  Jacob  the 
son  of  Matthan,  in  Matthew,  and  Heli,  the  son  of  Matthat, 
in  Luke,  must,  in  fact,  have  been  brothers — sons  of  the  same 
father.  And  if  Jacob  had  no  sons,  but  only  daughters,  and 
Joseph,  Heli's  son,  married  one  of  these — perfectly  natural 
suppositions — then  he  became  (on  the  principle  of  Matthew's 
table)  also  Jacob's  son,  and  the  lineal  heir  of  the  throne,  as 
Jacob  had  been.  It  only  requires  that  we  make  the  further 
supposition — no  ways  extraordinary  or  unreasonable — of  that 
daughter  being  the  Virgin  Mary,  in  order  to  meet  all  the  de 
mands  of  the  case;  for  thereby  the  principle  of  each  table 
would  be  preserved:  and  Mary  and  Joseph  being,  in  that 
case,  first  cousins,  and  cousins  in  that  line  which  had  the  right 
of  succession  to  the  throne,  the  birth  of  our  Lord  was  in  every 
respect  complete,  whether  viewed  in  respect  to  consanguinity 
or  to  relationship  to  the  throne.  The  whole  ordering  of  the 

19* 


222  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST. 

matter  exhibits  a  conjunction  of  circumstances  which  it  was 
worthy  of  the  Divine  oversight  to  accomplish,  and  which  yet 
might,  in  the  common  course  of  events,  have  readily  come 
about. 

It  may  be  added,  that  the  last  circumstance  in  the  series 
of  suppositions  now  mentioned — 'the  marriage  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  as  of  two  cousins,  the  one  the  son  of  Heli,  the  other 
the  daughter  of  Jacob,  dying  without  sons — perfectly  accords 
with  Jewish  practice ;  as  appears  alone  from  the  case  of  Jair 
marrying  into  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  and  thenceforth  taking 
rank  in  that  tribe;  and  still  more,  from  the  case  of  Zelophe- 
had's  five  daughters,  who  married  their  five  cousins,  and  re 
tained  their  inheritance.  It  was  the  constant  aim  of  the  Jews 
to  make  inheritance  and  blood-relationship,  as  far  as  possible, 
go  together.  And  it  could  not  seem  otherwise  than  natural 
and  proper,  that  the  daughter  of  the  nearest  heir  to  the  throne 
of  David,  should  be  espoused  to  the  next  heir.  Nor  is  it  un 
deserving  of  notice — as,  at  least,  negatively  favouring  the  sup 
position  respecting  Mary — that,  while  we  read  of  a  sister,  we 
never  hear  of  a  brother  belonging  to  her;  excepting  Joseph, 
female  relatives  alone  are  mentioned.  So  that,  in  the  sup 
posed  circumstances  of  the  case,  there  is  nothing  that  even 
appears  to  conflict  with  the  facts  of  gospel  history ;  every  thing 
seems  rather  to  be  in  natural  and  fitting  agreement  with 
them. 

IV.  The  few  remaining  peculiarities  in  the  two  tables  are 
of  comparatively  little  importance,  and  need  not  detain  us 
long. 

(I.)  The  existence  of  a  second  Cainan  in  only  one  of  the 
tables — in  that  of  Luke  (v.  36) — between  Sala  and  Arphaxad 
— is  one  of  these  minor  difficulties.  In  the  corresponding  ge 
nealogy  of  our  Hebrew  Bibles,  the  name  is  not  found.  The 
only  Cainan  that  appears  in  the  early  Hebrew  records  belongs 
to  the  ante-diluvian  period;  and  it  is  still  a  matter  of  dispute 
how  the  second  Cainan  has  originated — whether  it  had  some 
how  been  dropo  from  the  Hebrew  text,  or  had  been  unwar 
rantably  inserted  into  the  Greek.  It  is  found  in  all  the  copies 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST.  223 

extant  of  the  Septuagint,  except  the  Vatican ;  but  the  Septu- 
agint  itself  omits  it  in  the  genealogies  of  1  Chron.  i. ;  and  it 
is  wanting  in  the  Samaritan,  Pentateuch,  and  seems  not  to 
have  been  known  to  Josephus,  Berosus,Eupolemus,  Polyhistor ; 
,nor  does  it  even  appear  to  have  been  in  the  copies  of  the  Sep 
tuagint  used  by  Theophilus  of  Antioch  in  the  second  century, 
by  Africanus  in  the  third,  or  by  Eusebius  in  the  fourth.  Je 
rome,  too,  in  his  comments  on  that  part  of  Genesis,  omits  all 
mention  of  Cainan,  though  he  has  annotations  on  the  precise 
verse,  where  the  name  of  Cainan  is  now  found.  Augustine, 
however,  had  the  name  in  his  copy  both  of  the  Septuagint  and 
of  St.  Luke.  The  probability  seems  to  lie  decidedly  against 
the  original  existence  of  the  name  of  Cainan  in  the  genealogy, 
either  in  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament  tables.  But  the  pre 
cise  time  or  occasion  of  its  introduction  can  be  matter  only  of 
conjecture.  Possibly,  it  may  have  originated  in  some  mysti 
cal  notions  about  numbers,  which  often  had  a  considerable  in 
fluence  in  the  form  given  to  genealogies.  Bochart  was  of 
opinion,  it  probably  arose  from  some  clerical  oversight  in  the 
transcription  of  the  table  in  Luke,  and  was  thence  transferred 
to  the  Septuagint;  but  the  common  opinion  rather  leans  to  the 
view  of  its  having  first  appeared  in  the  Septuagint;  certainty, 
however,  is  unattainable.  Bochart's  statements  on  the  sub 
ject  are  worth  consulting — Phaleg,  L.  ii.  c.  13. 

(2.)  A  peculiarity  of  a  minor  kind  also  belongs  to  the  other 
table,  and  one,  in  respect  to  which  we  can  have  no  difficulty 
in  perceiving  the  influence  of  numbers.  It  is  the  division  into 
three  tesseradecades.  For  the  purpose  of  securing  the  three 
fourteens  certain  names  are  omitted  in  the  second  division — 
Ahaziah,  Joash,  Amaziah — which  would  have  unduly  swelled 
the  number,  if  they  had  been  inserted.  And  closely  connect 
ed  with  the  same  point  is  a  peculiarity  in  respect  to  Josiah, 
who  is  said  to  have  "  begot  Jeconias  and  his  brethren,  about 
the  time  they  were  carried  away  to  Babylon,"  (v.  11.)  It  is 
scarcely  possible  to  doubt,  that  some  corruption  must  have 
crept  into  the  text  here;  for,  in  reality,  Josiah  begot  Jehoia- 
kim,  not  Jeconias;  and  the  birth  of  Jehoiakim  took  place  a 
considerable  time  before  the  exile.  But  Jehoiakim  begat  Jeco- 


224  THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES  OF  CHRIST. 

nias  much  about  that  period;  and  the  natural  supposition  is, 
that  the  original  text  here  must  have  had  Jehoiakim  as  the 
son  of  Josiah,  and  then  Jeconias  as  the  son  of  Jehoiakim. 
The  two  might  very  readily  have  been  run  together  by  a  co 
pyist,  as,  in  one  form  of  them,  the  names  differed  only  in  a 
single  letter: — Jehoiakim  being  written  '/BM&etjU,  and  Jeconias 
'Ia>a%etfjL,  A  scribe  might  quite  naturally  take  these  for  but 
one  name,  and  so  leave  out  Jehoiakim.  This  view  is  strength 
ened  by  the  consideration,  that  unless  we  take  in  Jehoiakim, 
as  well  as  Jeconias,  we  want  one  to  complete  the  fourteen  of 
this  middle  division;  at  least,  it  can  only  be  made  out  by  the 
somewhat  awkward  expedient  of  including  the  name  of  David 
at  the  beginning  of  this  division,  as  well  as  at  the  close  of  the 
preceding  one.  If  this  really  had  required  to  be  done,  one 
does  not  see  why  the  evangelist  should  have  omitted  three 
names  together  in  order  to  shorten  the  list;  it  had  been  a 
much  simpler  expedient  to  leave  out  only  two.  And  on  each 
account  the  probability  is  very  great,  that  Jehoiakim  has  been 
dropt  from  the  text  in  the  manner  just  stated. 

In  regard,  however,  to  the  general  characteristic  of  the  di 
vision  of  the  entire  table  into  so  many  fourteens;  and  the 
adoption  of  certain  abbreviations  to  effect  this,  it  has  the  sup 
port  of  a  very  common  practice  among  the  Jews.  Schottgen 
has  produced  from  the  Synopsis  of  Sohar  a  genealogy  con 
structed  in  a  quite  similar  manner  to  the  one  before  us :  "  From 
Abraham  to  Solomon  there  are  15  generations,  and  at  that 
time  the  moon  was  full ;  from  Solomon  to  Zedekiah  there  are 
again  15  generations,  and  at  that  time  the  moon  was  down, 
and  Zedekiah's  eyes  were  put  out."  Lightfoot  also  produces 
on  Matt.  i.  several  artificially  framed  genealogies.  The  num 
ber  14  was  here,  doubtless,  fixed  on  as  the  basis  of  the  ar 
rangement,  and  made  to  rule  each  period:  because,  in  the  first 
period,  that  from  Abraham  to  David,  it  comprehends  the  en 
tire  number  of  links,  when  both  Abraham  and  David  are  in 
cluded.  No  higher  number,  therefore,  could  have  been  as 
sumed;  and  in  this  fact  we  discover  the  most  natural  reason 
for  the  ground  of  the  arrangement. 

In  the  preceding  remarks  we  have  touched  on  every  thing 


SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS.  225 

that  is  likely  to  create  difficulty  in  connexion  with  the  two 
genealogies.  For  various  other  points  of  a  collateral  kind,  or 
of  antiquarian  interest,  and  occasionally  bearing  on  peculia 
rities  in  the  Old  Testament  chronology,  we  refer  again  to  the 
volume  of  Lord  A.  Hervey,  which  will  be  found  well  deserving 
of  a  careful  perusal  from  those,  who  are  desirous  of  prosecuting 
the  subject  into  its  minuter  details. 


SECTION  SECOND. 

THE  DESIGNATIONS  AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS,  WITH  REFERENCE 
MORE  ESPECIALLY  TO  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  PASSAGES  IN  NEW 
TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE. 

ANGELIC  agency  meets  us  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  gos 
pel.  The  first  communications  made  respecting  the  new  or 
der  of  things,  then  on  the  eve  of  emerging,  came  through  the 
mediation  of  angels:  it  was  they  who  at  length  broke  the  si 
lence  of  ages.  Nor  may  this  be  matter  of  surprise,  if,  together 
with  the  long  cessation  of  prophetical  gifts  among  men,  respect 
be  had  to  the  part,  that  in  earlier  times  was  wont  to  be  taken 
by  angels  in  supernatural  revelations.  The  only  thing  that 
may  seem  somewhat  strange  is  the  assumption  of  a  name  (Ga 
briel)  by  one  of  those  angelic  messengers,  for  the  purpose 
more  immediately  of  confirming  the  certainty  of  those  things 
which  he  came  to  announce,  and  magnifying  the  guilt  incurred 
by  Zecharias  in  entertaining  doubt  concerning  the  possibility 
of  their  accomplishment,  (Luke  i.  19.)  This,  however,  admits 
of  a  satisfactory  explanation;  but  as  there  are  various  other 
points  and  passages  of  Scripture  connected  with  angelic  agency, 
which  also  call  for  explanation,  we  shall  take  the  whole  sub 
ject  into  consideration,  and  discuss  the  several  topics  relating 
to  it,  in  the  order  that  seems  most  natural  and  appropriate. 

I.  And,  first,  in  regard  to  the  general  designation  and  its 
use  in  Scripture-    The  Greek  affeloi,  like  the  Hebrew  D'?'?? , 


226  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

has  a  general  as  well  as  a  more  specific  sense:  it  may  denote 
any  individuals  sent  forth  with  a  message  to  carry,  or  a  com 
mission  to  execute — messengers,  as  well  in  the  natural  as  in 
the  supernatural  sphere  of  things.  When  the  reference  is 
plainly  to  the  former,  then  the  rendering  ought  commonly  to 
be  messenger,  as  it  usually  is  in  the  English  version — for  ex 
ample,  Job  i.  14;  1  Sam.  xi.  3;  Luke  ix.  52;  James  ii.  25. 
There  are  passages,  however,  in  which,  while  the  reference 
still  is  to  persons  or  things  belonging  to  the  earthly  sphere, 
the  name  is  applied  to  them  in  a  sense  quite  peculiar,  and  so 
as  sometimes  to  leave  it  doubtful  whether  angel  or  messenger 
might  be  the  more  fitting  translation.  In  this  I  do  not  in 
clude  such  passages  as  Acts  xii.  7,  or  1  Cor.  xi.  10,  where,  by 
"the  angel  of  the  Lord,"  in  the  one  case,  and  by  "the  an 
gels,"  in  the  other,  some  would  understand  merely  human  de 
legates;  entirely,  as  I  conceive,  against  the  proper  import 
and  interpretation  of  the  passages.  Of  this,  however,  after 
wards.  But,  in  Ps.  civ.  4,  we  have  the  words,  which  are 
quoted  in  Heb.  i.  7,  "  who  maketh  His  angels  spirits,  His  mi 
nisters  a  flaming  fire ;"  and  as  the  discourse  there  is  of  natu 
ral  things,  in  their  relation  to  the  beneficent  disposal  and  ever 
present  agency  of  God,  it  seems  fittest  to  understand  by  the 
spirits  winds,  and  by  the  flaming  fire  lightning;  so  that  the 
sense  comes  to  be,  that  God  makes  the  winds  of  heaven,  as 
angels  or  messengers,  do  His  bidding,  and  the  lightning  of 
the  clouds  minister  to  His  will:  not  certainly  (as  Kingsley 
interprets  it,  Village  Sermons,  p.  7,)  "showing  us  that  in 
those  breezes  there  are  living  spirits,  and  that  God's  angels 
guide  those  thunder  clouds:"  no,  but  showing  that  these  very 
breezes  and  thunder-clouds  are  His  angelic  or  ministering 
agents.  Of  course,  they  are  poetically  so  designated ;  and 
the  language  is  of  the  same  kind,  as  when  it  is  said  of  God, 
that  "  He  makes  the  clouds  His  chariot,  and  flies  upon  the 
wings  of  the  wind."  In  like  manner,  but  with  closer  approxi 
mation  to  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word,  prophets  are 
sometimes  called  God's  melakim,  or  angels,  though  the  ren 
dering  of  messengers  is  adopted  in  the  authorized  version  (Hag. 
i.  13;  Mai.  hi.  1;)  and  the  epithet  is  even  applied  to  Israel 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS/  227 

generally,  with  special  reference  to  the  prophetical  nature  of 
his  calling,  appointed  by  God  to  be  the  light  and  instructor 
of  the  world,  (Isa.  xlii.  19.) 

It  formed  but  a  comparatively  slight  transition  from  this 
use  of  the  word,  and  indeed,  was  but  connecting  it  with  ano 
ther  aspect  of  the  delegated  trust  committed  to^the  covenant- 
people,  when  the  priesthood  were  styled  God's  angels ;  as  in 
Mai.  ii.  7,  "The  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge,  and  they 
should  seek  the  law  at  his  mouth;  for  he  is  the  angel  (Eogl. 
version,  messenger)  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts."  This  obviously  is 
said,  not  so  much  of  any  individual  member  of  the  priestly 
class,  as  of  the  class  itself  collectively;  the  priesthood  was 
God's  delegated  ministry  for  making  known  the  things  per 
taining  to  His  will  and  worship — in  that  respect,  His  angel- 
interpreter.  And  thus  we  obtain  a  ready  explanation  of  ano 
ther  passage,  which  has  often  been  much  misunderstood: 
"When  thou  vowest  a  vow  unto  God,  defer  not  to  pay  it;  for 
He  hath  no  pleasure  in  fools ;  pay  that  which  thou  hast  vowed. 
Better  is  it  that  thou  shouldst  not  vow  than  that  thou  shouldst 
vow  and  not  pay.  Suffer  not  thy  mouth  to  cause  thy  flesh  to 
sin;  neither  say  thou  before  the  angel,  that  it  was  an  error" 
(Eccl.  v.  4 — 6 ;)  that  is,  neither  rashly  utter  with  thy  lips  what 
thou  hast  not  moral  strength  and  fixedness  of  purpose  to  per 
form;  nor,  if  thou  shouldst  have  uttered  it,  go  before  the 
priesthood,  the  Lord's  deputed  agents  to  wait  on  such  things, 
and  say  it  was  an  error,  as  if  by  making  an  easy  confession  of 
having  done  wrong  in  uttering  the  vow,  the  evil  could  be  re 
medied.  On  the  ground  especially  of  this  last  application  of 
the  word  angel  in  Old  Testament  Scripture,  we  find  the  most 
natural  explanation  of  the  address  under  which,  in  the  Apoca 
lypse,  the  epistles  were  sent  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia : — 
"to  the  angels  of  the  churches."  The  term  is  adopted,  like 
so  many  others  in  the  Apocalypse,  from  the  prophetical  usage, 
and  from  that  usage  more  especially  as  employed  in  later 
times  with  respect  to  the  priesthood.  It  can  determine  no 
thing,  therefore,  as  to  the  question,  whether  the  party  desig 
nated  angel,  might  at  the  time  consist  of  one  individual,  or  of 
a  collection  of  individuals ;  without  in  any  way  defining  this, 


228  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

it  indicates  the  high  position  of  the  party,  whether  single  or 
collective,  as  having  had  committed  to  it  the  authoritative 
instruction  and  oversight  of  the  Christian  community  in  the 
several  churches.  That  party  stood,  as  it  were,  between  hea 
ven  and  earth,  and  was  charged  with  God's  interest  in  that 
particular  locality.1 

Usually,  however,  when  angels  are  mentioned  in  Scripture, 
it  is  with  reference  to  another  kind  of  existences  than  such  as 
properly  belong  to  this  present  world — to  spirits,  as  contra 
distinguished  from  men  in  flesh  and  blood,  and  the  occupants 
of  regions  suited  to  their  ethereal  natures.  Yet  even  when 
thus  limited,  there  is  considerable  latitude  in  the  expression, 
and  the  name  may  be  said  to  comprise  several  orders  of  being. 
(1.)  First,  there  are  those  more  commonly  understood  by  the 
expression — the  angels  of  God,  as  they  are  sometimes  called, 
or  of  heaven  (Matt.  xxiv.  36;  Mark  xiii.  32;  John  i.  51; 
Matt.  xxii.  30.)  They  are  named  in  connexion  with  heaven, 
because  they  have  their  more  peculiar  abode  there,  in  the  re 
gion  of  God's  manifested  presence  and  glory.  God's  angels 
also  they  are  emphatically  called,  not  merely  because  they 
derived  their  being  from  His  hand,  and  are  constantly  sus 
tained  by  His  power — for  this  belongs  to  them  in  common 
with  all  creation — but  more  especially  because  they  are  in  a 
state  of  peculiar  nearness  to  God,  and  are  His  immediate 
agents  in  executing  the  purposes  of  His  will.  It  is  as  possess 
ing  the  ministry  of  such  glorious  agents,  and  possessing  them 
in  vast  numbers,  as  well  as  invincible  strength,  that  He  takes 
to  Himself  the  name  of  "The  Lord  of  Hosts."  (2.)  Then 
there  are  the  angels  of  darkness,  who  are  never,  however, 
like  the  others,  designated  simply  the  angels,  but  always  with 
some  qualifying  epithet  indicative  of  their  real  character  and 

1  This  very  charge  and  the  responsibility  implied  in  it,  is  itself  quite  fatal 
to  the  notion  of  Dean  Stanley,  "that  the  churches  are  there  described  as  per 
sonified  in  their  guardian  or  representative  angels"  (Apostolic  Age,  p.  71.) 
Angels  are  nowhere  else  spoken  of  as  having  to  do  in  such  a  manner  with 
the  life  and  purity  of  the  churches;  and  the  notion  is  altogether  opposed  to 
the  general  doctrine  of  angels. 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  229 

position;  such  as  "the  Devil's  angels,"  as  contrasted  with  the 
angels  of  God,  or  "the  angels  that  sinned,"  "that  kept  not 
their  first  estate,"  in  contradistinction  as  well  to  what  they 
themselves  once  were,  as  to  the  party  that  remained  steadfast 
(Matt.  xxv.  41;  2  Pet.  ii.  4;  Jude  verse  6.)  (3.)  Finally, 
there  is  one  who  is  called  the  angel,  by  way  of  eminence,  or 
"the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,"  and  who,  as  regards  angelic 
ministrations,  occupies  a  place  altogether  peculiar  to  himself. 
As  we  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  at  some  length  to  this  angel- 
prince  under  the  next  division,  it  is  needless  to  be  more  par 
ticular  here. 

II.  We  turn  now  to  the  individual  or  proper  names  some 
times  applied  to  angels  in  Scripture,  one  of  which  occurs  so 
near  the  commencement  of  the  Gospel  history.  It  is  at  a 
comparatively  late  period  of  the  elder  dispensation,  and  only 
in  the  book  of  Daniel,  that  we  find  any  specific  names  given 
to  particular  angels,  or  beings  acting  in  the  capacity  of  an 
gels.  There,  for  the  first  time,  occur  the  names  of  Gabriel 
and  Michael;  nor  do  any  other  names  beside  these  occur. 
The  late  appearance  of  such  designations,  together  with  the 
local  position  of  him  who  employed  them,  was  sufficient  ground 
for  the  Rationalists  to  rush  to  the  conclusion,  that  such  names 
were  of  heathen  origin,  and  that  Daniel  and  his  captive  bre 
thren  learned  them  from  the  Chaldeans.  .It  were  impossible 
to  admit  such  a  view,  without  bringing  into  doubt  the  pro 
phetical  gifts  of  Daniel,  and  involving  in  just  suspicion  the 
supernatural  character  of  his  communications.  For  the  an 
gelic  names  he  uses  were  not  applied  by  himself,  but  were 
heard  by  him  in  vision,  as  applied  one  to  another,  by  the  hea 
venly  messengers  themselves.  So  that  whatever  may  have 
been  the  reason  for  their  introduction,  it  can  with  no  fitness 
be  ascribed — if  Daniel's  own  representations  are  to  be  accept 
ed — to  an  adoption  of  the  heathen  notions  prevalent  around 
him.  Nor  was  such  a  tendency  in  the  direction  of  heathenism 
to  have  been  expected  here.  Nowhere  more  strongly  than  in 
the  book  of  Daniel  does  the  theocratic  spirit  keep  the  ascend 
ant — the  resolute  determination  to  abide  at  all  hazards  by  the 
old  foundations,  and,  in  things  spiritual  and  divine,  to  make 
20 


230  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

the  heathen  the  learner  merely,  not  the  instructor  or  the  guide. 
The  aim  and  design  of  the  whole  book  is  to  show  the  real  supe 
riority  and  ultimate  triumph  of  Judaism  over  heathenism. 
And  it  was  not,  to  say  the  least,  by  any  means  likely  that  in 
this  one  point  Daniel  should  have  been  disposed  to  renounce 
his  claims  as  a  messenger  and  prophet  of  the  true  God,  and 
become  a  disciple  of  the  magicians  over  whom  his  better  wis 
dom  carried  him  so  far  aloft. 

It  is  true,  no  doubt,  that  the  Jews,  after  the  Babylonish 
captivity,  the  interval  that  elapsed  between  that  period  and 
the  Christian  era,  showed  a  disposition  to  deal  somewhat  la 
vishly  with  angelic  names  and  orders.  The  book  of  Tobit, 
which  was  composed  during  this  interval,  not  only  finds  one 
of  the  principal  characters  of  the  story  in  an  angel  called  Ra 
phael,  but  makes  this  personage  say  of  himself,  "I  am  Ra 
phael,  one  of  the  seven  holy  angels,  which  present  the  prayers 
of  the  saints,  and  which  go  in  and  out  before  the  glory  of  the 
Holy  One:" — evidently  showing  that  something  like  a  sys 
tem  of  angelology,  branching  out  into  offices  as  well  as  names, 
had  sprung  up  among  the  Jews  'of  the  dispersion.  As  com 
monly  happens,  when  the  elements  of  superstition  begin  to 
work,  the  false  tendency  developed  itself  more  fully  as  time 
proceeded.  In  the  book  of  Enoch,  a  spurious  production  that 
appeared  some  time  about  the  Christian  era,  and  undoubtedly 
embodying  the  notions  of  many  of  the  more  speculative  Jews 
of  that  period,  we  are  told  of  the  "four  great  archangels,  Mi 
chael,  Raphael,  Gabriel,  and  Uriel,"  who  perpetually  bring 
reports  to  the  Creator,  of  the  corrupt  state  of  the  world,  and 
receive  from  Him  their  respective  commissions.  Rabbinical 
writers  descend  into  still  further  details,  specify  the  exact  po 
sitions  of  those  superior  angels  in  the  presence  of  God  (setting 
Michael  on  the  right,  Gabriel  on  the  left,  Raphael  behind, 
Uriel  in  front,)  tell  us  how  Gabriel  attended  at  the  nuptials 
of  Adam  and  Eve,  how  he  taught  Joseph  the  70  languages  of 
the  world,  and  many  similar  things  both  of  him  and  of  the 
other  archangels  (Eisenmenger  Ent.  Judenthum,  vol.  i.,  p. 
374,  sq.)  Such  were  the  fanciful  and  ridiculous  vagaries  into 
which  the  Jewish  angelology  ran ;  but  it  by  no  means  follows, 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  231 

from  such  a  system  having  developed  itself  among  the  later 
Jews,  that  it  had  its  origin  in  the  Chaldean  influence,  to  which 
they  were  exposed  in  Bahylon — least  of  all,  that  Daniel  and 
his  godly  companions  led  the  way  in  surrendering  themselves 
to  the  direction  of  such  an  influence.  Considering  the  jea 
lousy  with  which  not  only  they,  but  the  stricter  Jews  gene 
rally,  felt  toward  the  corruptions  of  heathenism,  after  the  Ba 
bylonish  exile,  the  more  natural  supposition  is,  that  they  spun, 
their  theories  of  angelical  existences  out  of  the  few  actual  no 
tices  that  occur  of  the  world  of  spirits  in  their  own  Scrip 
tures — in  this,  as  in  other  things,  pushing  some  scattered  ele 
ments  of  truth  into  many  groundless  and  frivolous  extremes. 
It  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  what  is  known  of  Jewish  or 
Rabbinical  speculations  in  general,  to  affirm,  that  the  real 
basis  of  what  they  imagined  respecting  the  names  and  offices 
of  angels,  was  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  though  the  opinions  of  those  among  whom  they  lived 
might  come  in  at  one  quarter  or  another,  to  give  a  particular 
turn  to  the  current  of  their  speculations. 

Now,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that,  while  we  meet  with  spe 
cific  names  of  those  heavenly  messengers  only  in  Daniel,  yet 
in  earlier  revelations  there  is  a  certain  approximation  to  the 
same  thing;  and  the  change  cannot  be  characterized  as  very 
abrupt,  or  the  feature  in  Daniel  marked  as  absolutely  singular. 
Even  in  one  of  the  earliest  notices  of  angelic  visitation,  that 
which  occurred  to  Abraham  on  the  plains  of  Mature  (Gen. 
xviii.,)  it  is  evident  from  the  sacred  narrative  that,  of  the  three 
personages  who  then  appeared,  one  was  manifestly  superior  in 
dignity,  if  not  also  in  nature,  to  the  other  two.  He  remains 
behind,  and,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  speaks  to  Abraham  re 
specting  the  destruction  of  Sodom,  while  they  go  in  the 
humbler  character  of  messengers  to  take  personal  cognizance 
of  its  state.  Then,  in  later  times,  we  have  the  designations 
of  "the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,"  "the  angel  of  the  Lord's 
presence,"  "the  angel  in  whom  the  Lord's  name  is"  (Mai. 
iii.  1;  Isa.  Ixiii.  *9 ;  Ex.  xxiii.  21;)  constantly  represented  as 
different  from,  and  superior  to,  a  mere  angel — for,  in  the  first 
of  the  passages  just  referred  to,  he  is  identified  with  the  Lord 


232  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

Himself,  whom  the  people  professed  to  be  seeking  after;  in 
the  second  he  is  described  as  the  Saviour  of  the  covenant-peo 
ple  ;  and,  in  the  third — the  earliest  of  the  three,  and  the  foun 
dation  of  the  others — He  is  in  a  pointed  manner  distinguished 
from  an  angel  in  the  ordinary  sense  (comp.  the  passage  with 
ch.  xxxiii.  2,  12,  14,)  and  is  characterized  as  the  same  that 
afterwards  appeared  to  Joshua,  at  once  as  the  Lord  and  as 
the  Captain  of  the  Lord's  host  (Josh.  v.  14,  15,  vi.  2.)  Still 
further,  we  find  this  highest  angel,  the  Angel  or  messenger 
of  the  covenant,  identified  with  the  Messiah,  and  designated 
by  a  variety  of  names,  such  as  Immanuel,  Jehovah  Zidekinu, 
the  prince,  or  the  prince  of  the  host,  etc.  And  not  only  is 
this  leader  of  the  Lord's  hosts  thus  individualized  and  indicated 
by  name,  but  a  specific  designation  is  also  frequently  applied 
to  the  great  adversary  of  God  and  man — Satan.  So  that  it 
was  not  to  strike  into  a  path  altogether  new,  but  merely  to 
take  an  additional  step  in  a  direction  already  formed,  when 
Daniel  introduced  the  names  of  Michael  and  Gabriel  into  our 
heavenly  vocabulary. 

But  why  should  even  such  a  step  have  been  taken?  Was 
this  done  in  a  way  which  admits  of  being  intelligently  explained 
and  justified?  Or  does  there  appear  in  it  something  arbitrary 
and  fanciful?  In  answer  to  such  questions,  it  may  be  replied 
generally,  that,  if  such  designations  were  proper  to  be  intro 
duced  any  where,  it  is  precisely  in  the  book  of  Daniel  that 
they  might  be  most  fitly  looked  for.  His  writings  possess 
considerably  more  of  a  dramatic  character  than  those  of  the 
other  prophets,  and  in  his  own  book  those  are  the  most  dra 
matic  visions  in  which  the  names  occur.  It  was,  therefore, 
in  them  that  the  actors  in  the  spiritual  drama  might  be  ex 
pected  to  be  most  distinctly  portrayed.  And  then  the  indi 
vidual  names,  which  are  used  for  this  end,  are  found  on  exami 
nation  to  be,  not  proper  names  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  ap 
pellatives  designating  the  nature  and  office  of  those  who  bore 
them,  and  most  naturally  growing  out  of  the  special  commu 
nications  which  they  were  engaged  in  making.  To  see  this, 
we  have  oi,ly  to  glance  at  the  names  themselves. 

1.  Beyond  doubt  the  highest  in  rank  and  importance  is 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  233 

MICHAEL.  This  name  occurs  twice  in  Daniel,  and  is  also 
found  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude  and  the  Revelation.  It  is  com 
pounded  of  three  words,  which  together  express  the  meaning, 
Who  is  like  God?  (^P'P.)  The  M9  which  denotes  God,  has  re 
spect  to  God  as  the  God  of  might;  so  that  the  idea  indicated  by 
the  appellation  is,  the  possession,  either  of  absolutely  Divine,  or 
of  Divine-like  majesty  and  power — the  former,  if  the  name  is 
applied  to  one  in  whom  the  nature  of  God  resides;  the  latter, 
if  applied  to  a  created  intelligence.  Here,  however,  there  is 
considerable  diversity  of  opinion.  The  Jewish  and  Rabbini 
cal  authorities,  as  already  noticed,  understand  by  Michael  one 
of  the  four  highest  angels,  or  archangels,  as  they  are  some 
times  termed — though  with  a  certain  superiority  possessed  by 
him  above  the  rest;  for  they  call  Michael  the  Princeps  Maxi- 
mus,  the  tutelary  angel  of  Judea,  God's  peculiar  angel,  the 
Prince  of  the  World.  He  was,  therefore,  in  their  account, 
decidedly  the  highest  of  created  intelligences,  but  still  himself 
a  part  of  the  creation.  We  find  the  same  view  exhibited  in 
one  of  the  earliest  Patristic  productions,  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas;  and  it  became  the  prevailing  opinion  among  the 
fathers.  But  the  divines  of  the  Reformation  very  commonly 
adopted  another  view,  and  understood  Michael  to  be  a  name 
of  Christ.  So,  for  example,  Luther  (on  Dan.  x.  21  and  xii.  1,) 
and  Calvin,  who,  at  least,  expresses  his  preference  for  the 
same  opinion,  though  without  absolutely  rejecting  the  other; 
in  the  next  age,  also  Cocceius,  Witsius,  Turretine,  Lampe, 
Calov,  the  last  of  whom  even  affirms  the  opinion  which  repre 
sents  the  Michael  in  Dan.  xii.  1  as  a  created  angel,  to  be  im 
pious.  This  certainly  appears  to  be  the  correct  view,  and  we 
shall  present  in  as  brief  a  compass  as  possible  the  grounds  on 
which  it  is  based. 

(1.)  The  name  itself — who  is  like  G-od?  This  seems  to  point 
to  the  Supreme  Lord,  and  in  a  way  very  common  with  the 
earlier  writers  of  the  Old  Testament;  as  in  Ex.  xv.  11,  "Who 
is  like  Thee  among  the  gods,'0  Lord?"  or,  in  Ps.  Ixxxix.  8, 
" Who  is  like  the  Lord  among  the  sons  of  the  mighty?"  Such 
an  ascription  of  peerless  might  and  glory,  when  turned  into  a 
personal  appellation,  seems  most  naturally  to  imply,  that  the 

20* 


234  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

qualities  expressed  in  it  belonged  to  the  individual;  it  fixes 
our  regard  upon  Him  as  the  representative  and  bearer  of  what 
the  appellation  imports ;  and  the  turn  given  to  it  by  Bengel 
(on  Rev.  xii.  7,)  as  if  it  were  a  mark  of  humility  rather  than 
of  weakness — as  if  the  possessor  of  the  title  pointed  away 
from  himself  to  God — is  quite  unnatural,  and  contrary  to  the 
Scriptural  usage  in  such  appellations.  Nor,  in  that  case,  would 
it  have  formed  a  suitable  designation  for  the  highest  of  the 
angels,  since  it  could  have  indicated  nothing  as  to  any  peculiar 
honour  or  dignity  belonging  to  him.  As  a  distinguished  epi 
thet,  it  is  appropriate  only  to  Christ,  who  actually  possesses 
the  unrivalled  properties  of  God;  and  who,  expressly  on  the 
ground  of  his  possessing  these,  and  being  able  to  say,  "All 
that  the  Father  hath  is  Mine,"  has  charged  Himself  with  the 
interests  of  the  covenant-people,  and  is  found  adequate  to  the 
establishment  of  its  provisions  (John  v.  18,  xvi.  15;  Isa.  ix. 
6,  7;  Phil.  ii.  6-11.)  (2.)  Another  argument  is  found  in  the 
coll-iteral,  and,  to  some  extent,  epexegetical,  or  explanatory 
designations,  which  are  applied  to  the  same  personage.  Thus 
in  Dan.  xii.  1,  He  is  called  emphatically  the  Great  Prince 
pb'H  SiiJn)  apparently  referring  to,  and  closely  agreeing  with, 
the  name  assumed  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord  in  Josh.  v.  14, 
captain,  or  rather,  prince  of  Jehovah's  host  (n]n:~  XP>'-  n^,) 
that  is,  the  leader  of  the  heavenly  forces  of  the  Great  King. 
So  again,  in  ch.  x.  21,  Michael  is  styled  the  prince  of  the 
covenant-people,  "  Your  prince,"  the  one  who  presides  over 
their  state  and  destinies ;  or,  as  it  is  at  ch.  xii.  1,  "Who  standeth 
up  for  the  children  of  thy  people,"  namely,  to  protect  and 
deliver  them.  These  descriptions  seem  plainly  to  identify 
Michael  with  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  who  sometimes  ap 
pears  as  God,  and  sometimes  as  his  peculiar  representative. 
Even  the  Rabbinical  Jews  could  not  altogether  escape  the  con 
viction  of  the  identity  of  Michael  and  this  personage;  for  the 
saying  occurs  more  than  once  in  their  writings,  that  "wher 
ever  Michael  appeared,  there  was  seen  the  glory  of  the  She- 
kinah  itself."  The  passage,  which  tended  chiefly  to  lead  them 
in  the  wrong  direction,  was  Dan.  x.  13,  where  he  is  called 
"one  (IHN  )  of  the  chief  princes,"  or,  as  it  might  equally  be 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  235 

rendered,  "first  of  the  chief  princes,"  head  of  the  angel-chiefs. 
The  Jewish  writers  understood  it  to  indicate  merely  precedence 
or  superiority  in  respect  to  others  essentially  of  the  same  class. 
But,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  other  passages  and  expressions 
in  Daniel,  it  seems  intended  simply  to  exhibit  the  relation  of 
Michael  to  the  angels,  to  present  him  to  our  view  as  their  di 
recting  and  governing  head.  It  is  substantially,  indeed,  of 
the  same  import  as  archangel,  which  is  never  used  in  the 
plural,  and  never  receives  a  personal  application  but  to  Mi 
chael  (Jude  ver.  9;  1  Thess.  iv.  16;)  so  that  there  is  no  Scrip 
tural  warrant  for  understanding  it  as  an  indication  of  an  an 
gelic  hierarchy,  or  otherwise  than  as  a  designation  of  the  head 
of  angelic  hosts.  (3.)  Lastly,  the  descriptions  given  of  Mi 
chael,  both  of  his  person  and  his  acts,  seem  to  confirm  the 
same  view:  they  are  such  as  properly  belong  to  the  Messiah, 
the  essentially  Divine  Head  and  King  of  His  Church,  but 
are  scarcely  compatible  with  the  position  of  a  created  intelli 
gence.  Take,  for  example,  the  delineation  of  his  person  as 
given  in  Dan.  x.  5,  6,  "And  I  looked,  and  behold  a  certain 
man  in  linen,  whose  loins  were  girded  with  fine  gold  of  Uphaz: 
his  body  also  was  like  the  beryl,  and  his  face  as  the  appear 
ance  of  lightning,  and  his  eyes  as  lamps  of  fire,  and  his  arms 
and  his  feet  like  in  colour  to  polished  brass,  and  the  voice  of 
his  words  like  the  voice  of  a  multitude" — the  description  has 
been  almost  literally  transferred  to  the  vision  of  the  glorified 
Redeemer  by  St.  John  in  the  Apocalypse  (ch.  i.  13-17,  ii.  18.) 
With  representations  so  nearly  identical,  we  naturally  con 
ceive  the  same  personages  to  have  been  intended  by  them. 
Some,  indeed,  have  taken  the  description  in  Daniel  as  refer 
ring  to  Gabriel,  and  not  to  Michael;  but  this  is  plainly  against 
the  natural  import  of  the  narrative;  which  represents  Gabriel 
as  coming  and  talking  familiarly  with  the  prophet,  while  the 
vision  of  the  glorious  One  was  so  overpowering,  that  he  was 
unable  to  bear  the  sight.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  under 
stand  it  of  Michael,  who  appeared  in  glory  at  some  distance, 
and  on  the  opposite  bank  of  the  river.  What  is  afterwards 
said  of  Michael,  at  ch.  xii.  1.  as  standing  up  to  deliver  the 
Lord's  people  in  a  time  of  unparalleled  tribulation,  and  the 


236  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

co-relative  action  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Apocalypse  (ch.  xii. 
7—9,)  of  overcoming  and  casting  down  from  the  heaven  of  his 
power  and  glory  the  great  adversary  of  God  and  man,  serve 
also  to  confirm  the  identification  of  Michael  with  Christ.  For, 
the  actions  referred  to  are  manifestly  proper  to  Christ,  as  the 
Head  of  His  Church,  not  to  any  inferior  agent.  Scripture 
constantly  represents  it  as  the  sole  and  peculiar  glory  of  Christ 
to  put  down  all  power  and  authority  that  exalts  itself  against 
God,  or  to  execute  the  judgment  written  upon  the  adversary. 
On  these  grounds  we  conclude,  that  Michael  is  but  another 
name  for  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  or  for  Christ.  It  is  the 
name  alone  that  is  peculiar  to  Daniel ;  and  the  reason,  ap 
parently,  why  such  a  name  was  chosen  in  the  revelations  given 
through  Him,  was  to  render  prominent  the  Divine  power  and 
majesty  in  the  angel-mediator,  which  assured  the  covenant- 
people  of  a  triumphant  issue  out  of  those  gigantic  conflicts 
and  troubles  that  were  before  them,  if  only  they  proved  stead 
fast  to  the  truth.  (Compare  Ode  de  Angelis,  pp.  1054-58, 
Hengstenberg  on  Daniel  and  on  Rev.  xii.  7-9.) 

(2.)  In  regard  to  the  other  specific  name,  GABRIEL,  it  is 
clear,  both  from  the  name  itself,  and  from  the  historical  no 
tices  given  of  the  bearer  of  it,  that  a  created  angel  is  to  be 
understood.  The  word  may  have  a  slightly  different  explana 
tion  put  upon  it,  according  as  the  iod  is  held  to  be  paragogic 
merely,  or  the  pronominal  affix :  in  the  former  case,  it  means 
hero,  or  mighty  one  of  God ;  in  the  other,  my  hero,  or  mighty 
one,  is  God — God  is  my  strength.  Either  way  the  leading 
thought  conveyed  by  it  is  much  the  same;  it  embodies  a  two 
fold  idea — that  the  bearer  of  the  name  is  distinguished  by  he 
roic  might,  and  that  he  has  this  might,  not  of  himself,  but  of 
God.  Such  an  appellation  could  only  be  given  to  a  created 
intelligence,  to  one  whose  part  it  was  to  recognise  his  depend 
ence  upon  God,  and  in  the  exercise  of  his  might  to  show  forth 
something  of  the  almightiness  of  the  Creator.  Appearing 
under  this  designation,  it  indicated  that  the  business,  which 
led  to  his  appearance,  was  one  that  would  call  for  the  mani 
festation  of  hcrois  energy,  such  as  could  be  found  only  in  close 
connexion  with  the  all-sufficient  Jehovah.  The  times  and  cir- 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  237 

cumstances  referred  to  in  the  vision  of  Daniel,  in  which  Ga 
briel  acted  a  prominent  part  (ch.  viii.,  ix.  21,)  were  precisely 
of  such  a  description;  they  bore  respect  to  the  great  strug 
gles  and  conflicts,  through  which  ultimate  security  and  bless 
ing  were  to  be  attained  for  the  covenant-people;  and  the  re 
velation  of  the  progress  and  issue  of  the  contest  by  one,  whose 
very  name  carried  up  the  soul  to  the  omnipotence  of  Jehovah, 
was  itself  a  pledge  and  assurance  of  a  prosperous  result.  Nor 
was  it  materially  different  at  the  commencement  of  the  Gos 
pel,  where  the  name  of  Gabriel  again  meets  us  in  Divine  com 
munications.  These  communications  bore  upon  matters  en 
compassed  with  peculiar  difficulty,  and  capable  of  being  brought 
about  only  by  the  supernatural  agency  of  Godhead.  The  very 
first  stage  in  the  process  lay  across  a  natural  impossibility, 
since  to  furnish  the  herald  of  the  new  dispensation  an  aged 
and  barren  woman  (Elizabeth)  must  become  the  mother  of  a 
child.  The  next,  which  was  presently  afterwards  announced 
to  Mary,  involved  not  only  a  natural  impossibility,  but  the 
most  astounding  and  wonderful  of  all  mysteries — the  incarna 
tion  of  Godhead.  In  such  circumstances,  what  could  be  more 
fitting  and  appropriate,  than  that  the  Divine  messenger,  sent 
from  the  Upper  Sanctuary  to  disclose  the  immediate  approach 
of  such  events,  should  come  as  the  personal  representative  of 
the  heroic  might  and  ener.gy  of  Heaven? — should  even  make 
himself  known  as  the  Gabriel,  the  God-empowered  hero,  who 
in  former  times  had  disclosed  to  Daniel  the  purpose  of  God  to 
hold  in  check  the  powers  of  evil,  and  in  spite  of  them  to  con 
firm  for  ever  the  eternal  covenant?  The  remembrance  of  the 
past,  in  which  the  purpose  of  God  had  been  so  fearlessly  pro 
claimed  and  so  successfully  vindicated,  now  came  in  aid  of 
the  testimony,  which  the  same  Divine  messenger  was  sent  to 
deliver;  so  that  the  tidings,  all  strange  and  startling  as  they 
might  appear,  should  have  met  from  the  children  of  the  cove 
nant  with  a  ready  and  believing  response. 

Even  the  miraculous,  temporary  suspension  of  the  power  of 
speech,  with  which  the  appearance  of  Gabriel  to  Zacharias 
came  to  be  attended,  was  full  of  meaning  and  in  perfect  keep 
ing  with  the  whole  circumstances  of  the  time.  Viewed  in  con- 


238  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

nexion  with  these,  the  aspect  of  harshness,  which  at  first  sight 
it  may  seem  to  carry,  will  be  found  to  disappear.  That  the 
measure  of  unbelief,  which  arose  in  his  mind  on  seeing  the 
angelic  vision,  and  on  first  hearing  the  announcement  made 
to  him,  was  deserving  of  rebuke,  must  be  regarded  as  certain 
from  the  rebuke  actually  administered;  no  such,  even  slight 
and  temporary,  punishment  would  have  been  inflicted,  had  it 
not  been  amply  justified  by  the  existing  state  of  mind  in  Za- 
charias.  But  Zacharias  is  chiefly  to  be  contemplated  here  as 
a  representative  of  the  people,  whose  prayers  he  was  at  the 
time  symbolically  offering;  and  in  him,  as  such,  were  embo 
died,  along  with  the  better  elements  that  continued  to  work 
among  them,  a  portion  also  of  the  worse.  The  unbelief,  there 
fore,  that  discovered  itself  in  connexion  with  the  angelical  an 
nouncement,  was  but  too  sure  an  indication  of  the  evil  that 
slumbered  even  among  the  better  part  of  the  covenant-people. 
And  the  instant,  and  visible,  though  still  comparatively  gentle 
rebuke  it  met  with  in  the  case  of  Zacharias,  was  meant  to  be 
a  salutary  and  timely  warning  to  the  people  at  large ;  and, 
taken  in  connexion  with  the  name,  Gabriel,  made  known 
along  with  it,  it  was  also  a  palpable  proof  that  this  name  was 
no  empty  title,  but  gave  assurance  of  the  immediate  operation 
of  the  infinite  power  of  Godhead.  Thus  the  miracle  of  dumb 
ness  wrought  upon  Zacharias  became  a  sign  to  all  around — a 
sign  of  the  certainty  with  which  the  things  should  be  accom 
plished  that  were  announced  by  Gabriel  (whatever  might  be 
required  of  miraculous  power  for  their  performance,)  and  a 
sign  also  of  the  withering  and  disastrous  result,  which  should 
infallibly  emerge,  if  the  manifestations  of  Divine  power  and 
goodness  that  were  at  hand  should  be  met  by  a  spirit  of  dis 
trust  and  unbelief. 

It  thus  appears,  when  the  history  and  relations  of  the  sub 
ject  are  duly  considered,  that  there  is  nothing  greatly  peculiar 
in  the  use  of  the  names  Michael  and  Gabriel,  whether  in  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  or  in  New  Testament  Scripture.  The  names 
here  also,  as  in  those  of  Irnmanuel.  Branch  of  the  Lord,  An 
gel  of  the  covenant,  Satan,  were  really  descriptive  of  nature 
and  position.  And  their  appearance  only  in  the  later  revela- 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  239 

tions  of  the  Old  covenant  finds  a  ready  explanation  in  the 
circumstance,  that  the  progressive  nature  of  the  Divine  com 
munications  necessarily  led  to  a  progressive  individualizing, 
both  in  regard  to  the  Messiah  Himself,  and  to  the  various 
persons  and  objects  connected  with  His  undertaking.  Hence, 
it  naturally  happens,  that  in  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Tes-. 
tament,  and  in  those  of  the  New,  the  individual  features  and 
characteristics  of  all  kinds  are  brought  most  distinctly  out. 
In  this  respect,  therefore,  the  appearance  is  precisely  as  the 
reality  might  have  led  us  to  expect. 

III.  Having  so  far  cleared  our  way  to  a  right  understand 
ing  of  the  subject  of  angels,  by  examining  the  language  em 
ployed,  both  in  its  more  general  and  its  more  specific  forms, 
we  naturally  turn  to  inquire  next,  what,  according  to  the  re 
velations  of  Scripture,  is  their  personal  state? — the  state, 
namely,  of  those,  who  are  always  understood,  when  angels 
generally  are  spoken  of — the  angels  in  heaven.  In  Scripture 
they  are  uniformly  represented  as  in  the  most  elevated  condi 
tion  of  intelligence,  purity,  and  bliss.  Endowed  with  facul 
ties  which  fit  them  for  the  highest  sphere  of  existence,  they 
excel  in  strength,  and  can  endure,  unharmed,  the  intuition  of 
God  (Ps.  ciii.  20 ;  Matt,  xviii.  10.)  Nor  in  moral  excellence 
are  they  less  exalted;  for  they  are  called  emphatically  "the 
holy  angels,"  "elect  angels,"  "angels  of  light"  (Mark  viii. 
38;  2  Tim.  v.  21;  2  Cor.  xi.  14;)  and  are  represented  as  ever 
doing  the  will  of  God,  doing  it  so  uniformly  and  perfectly, 
that  men.  on  earth  can  aim  at  nothing  higher  or  better  than 
doing  it  like  the  angels  in  heaven.  In  the  sphere,  too,  of 
their  being  and  enjoyment,  all  is  in  fitting  harmony  with  their 
natural  and  moral  perfections;  not  only  no  elements  of  pain 
or  disorder,  but  every  essential  provision  for  the  wants  and 
capacities  of  their  immortal  natures;  so  that  to  have  our  des 
tiny  associated  with  theirs,  to  have  our  condition  made  equal 
to  theirs,  is  presented  to  our  view  as  the  very  glory  of  that 
resurrection-state  to  which  Christ  has  called  His  people  (Luke 
xx.  36;  Heb.  xii.  22.)  The  two,  indeed,  may  not  be  in  all  re 
spects  identical,  can  hardly,  indeed,  be  so;  but  that  which  is 


240  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

made  to  stand  as  the  pattern  cannot  in  anything  of  moment 
be  inferior  to  what  is  represented  as  bearing  its  likeness. 

That  the  angelic  state  was  from  the  first  substantially  what 
it  still  is,  can  scarcely  be  doubted  from  the  general  tenor  of 
the  Scriptural  representations.  Yet  in  these  a  certain  change 
also  is  indicated — not,  indeed,  from  evil  to  good,  or  from  fee 
bleness  to  strength,  but  from  a  state,  in  which  there  was,  at 
least,  the  possibility  of  falling,  to  another  in  which  this  has 
ceased  to  be  possible — a  state  of  ever-abiding  holiness  and 
endless  felicity.  The  actual  fall  and  perdition  of  a  portion  of 
their  number,  implies  that  somehow  the  possibility  now  men 
tioned  did  at  one  period  exist;  and  the  angels,  that  kept  their 
first  estate,  and  have  received  the  designation  of  elect  angels, 
nay,  are  assigned  an  everlasting  place  among  the  ministers 
and  members  of  Christ's  kingdom,  must  have  made  some  ad 
vance  in  the  security  of  their  condition.  And  this,  we  inevi 
tably  conclude,  must  infer  some  advance  also  in  relative  per 
fection ;  for  absolute  security  to  rational  beings  in  the  enjoy 
ment  of  life  .and  blessing,  we  can  only  conceive  of  as  the  re 
sult  of  absolute  holiness;  they  have  it — they  alone  can  have 
it — we  imagine,  in  whom  holiness  has  become  so  deeply  rooted, 
so  thoroughly  pervasive  of  all  the  powers  and  susceptibilities 
of  their  being,  that  these  can  no  longer  feel  and  act  but  in 
subservience  to  holy  aims  and  obedience  to  principles  of  right 
eousness.  So  far,  therefore,  the  angels  appear  to  have  be 
come  what  they  now  are,  that  a  measure  of  security,  and,  by 
consequence,  a  degree  of  perfection  (whether  as  regards  spiri 
tual  knowledge,  or  moral  energy)  is  now  theirs,  which  some 
time  was  not. 

From  the  representations  of  Scripture,  there  is  room  also 
for  another'distinction  in  regard  to  the  state  of  angels,  though, 
like  the  one  just  noticed,  it  cannot  be  more  than  generally  in 
dicated  or  vaguely  apprehended.  The  distinction  referred  to 
is  a  certain  diversity  in  rank  and  power,  which  there  seems 
ground  for  believing  to  exist  among  the  heavenly  hosts. 
There  are  indications  in  Scripture  of  something  like  angelic 
orders.  For,  though  the  term  archangel  cannot  be  applied 
in  this  connexion,  being  used  (as  we  have  seen)  only  as  the 


AND   DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  241 

designation  of  a  single  personage,  and  that,  apparently,  the 
Messiah,  yet  the  name  Gabriel,  when  assumed  as  a  distinctive 
epithet,  appears  to  imply  that  he  stood  in  a  nearer  relation 
ship  to  God  than  certain  others,  or  partook  to  a  larger  extent 
than  they  of  the  might  of  Godhead.  So  also  in  Rev.  xviii. 
21,  we  read  of  "a  mighty  angel,"  as  if  not  every  angel  could 
be  called  such.  And  in  various  places  there  is  an  accumula 
tion  of  epithets,  as  of  different  orders,  when  referring  to  the 
heavenly  intelligences;  as  in  Eph.  i.  20,  21,  where  Christ  is 
said  to  be  exalted  "  above  all  principality  and  power,  and 
might,  and  dominion,  and  every  name  that  is  named,  not  only 
in  this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come;"  and  in  1 
Pet.  iii.  22,  where  He  is  again  said,  in  His  heavenly  exalta 
tion,  to  have  "angels,  principalities,  and  powers  made  subject 
to  Him."  But  if  such  expressions  appear  to  render  probable 
or  certain  the  existence  of  some  kind  of  personal  distinctions 
among  the  angels  of  glory,  it  leaves  all  minuter  details  re 
specting  it  under  a  veil  of  impenetrable  secrecy.  An'd  to 
presume  like  the  ancient  Jews,  to  single  out  four  or  seven  pri 
mary  angels;  or,  like  the  Rabbins,  to  distribute  the  angelic 
hosts  into  ten  separate  classes;  or,  still  again,  with  many  of 
the  Scholastics,  to  range  them  in  nine  orders,  each  consisting 
of  three  classes,  regularly  graduated  in  knowledge  and  autho 
rity,  the  class  below  ever  standing  in  dependence  upon  the 
one  above: — to  deal  with  the  matter  thus,  is  to  do  precisely 
what  the  apostle  has  discharged  any  one  from  attempting  on 
such  a  subject,  "intrude  into  those  things  which  he  has  not 
seen,  vainly  puffed  up  by  his  fleshly  mind"  (Col.  ii.  18.)  Of 
persons  who  discourse  familiarly  upon  such  points,  and  discuss 
the  most  subtle  questions  regarding  angelic  being  and  agency, 
Gerhard  very  justly,  as  well  as  wittily  said,  "They  naturally 
dispose  one  to  ask,  how  recently  must  they  have  fallen  from 
heaven!"  (quam  nuper  sint  de  coelo  delapsi.)  And  Calvin 
with  his  accustomed  sense  and  gravity  remarks,  "If  we  would 
be  truly  wise,  we  shall  give  no  heed  to  those  foolish  notions, 
which  have  been  delivered  by  idle  men  concerning  angelic 
orders  without  warrant  from  the  Word  of  God"  (Inst.  i.  c. 
14,  4.) 

21 


242  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

We  are  assuredly  entitled  to  affirm,  that  in  whatever  the 
distinction  among  angels  may  consist,  or  to  whatever  extent 
it  may  reach,  it  cannot  in  the  least  interfere  with  the  happi 
ness  they  individually  enjoy.  For  this  happiness  arises,  in 
the  first  instance,  from  each  standing  in  a  proper  relation  to 
the  great  centre  of  life  and  blessing;  and  then  from  their 
being  appointed  to  occupy  such  a  sphere,  and  take  part  in  such 
services  and  employments,  as  are  altogether  adapted  to  their 
state  and  faculties.  These  fundamental  conditions  being  pre 
served,  it  is  easy  to  conceive,  how  certain  diversities,  both  in 
natural  capacity,  and  in  relative  position,  may  be  perfectly 
compatible  with  their  mutual  satisfaction  and  general  well- 
being,  and  may  even  contribute  to  secure  it. 

IV.  The  proper  function  and  employment  of  angels  rela 
tively  to  us,  is  what  next  calls  for  consideration ;  and  on  this 
point  we  are  furnished  in  Scripture  with  information  of  a  more 
varied  and  specific  nature,  as  it  is  that  which  more  nearly 
concerns  ourselves.  In  not  a  few  passages  we  find  their  know 
ledge  of  what  pertains  to  affairs  on  earth  distinctly  intimated, 
and  also  their  interest  in  it,  as  proving  to  them  an  occasion 
of  joy,  or  yielding  a  deeper  insight  into  the  purposes  of  God. 
Thus,  they  appear  taking  part  in  communications  made  from 
heaven  to  earth,  desiring  to  look  into  the  things  which  con 
cern  the  scheme  of  salvation,  learning  from  the  successive 
evolution  of  the  Divine  plan  more  than  they  otherwise  knew 
of  God's  manifold  wisdom,  rejoicing  together  at  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  and  even  over  the  return  of  individual  wanderers  to 
His  fold  (1  Pet.  i.  12 ;  Eph.  iii.  10 ;  Luke  ii.  13,  xv.  10.)  But 
there  are  other  passages,  in  which  a  still  closer  connexion  is 
indicated — passages  which  represent  them  as  engaged  in  di 
rectly  and  actively  ministering  to  the  good  of  believers,  and 
shielding  or  delivering  them  from  the  evils  incident  to  their 
lot.  The  office  of  angels  in  this  respect  was  distinctly  under 
stood  even  in  Old  Testament  times;  as  appears  alone  from 
the  designation,  "Lord  of  Hosts,"  so  commonly  applied  to 
God  in  respect  to  the  forces  He  has  at  command  for  the  ex 
ecution  of  His  purposes;  and  still  more  from  the  frequent  in- 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  243 

terposition  of  angels  to  disclose  tidings  or  accomplish  deliver 
ances  for  the  covenant-people,  as  well  as  from  express  as 
surances,  such  as  these:  "The  angel  of  the  Lord  encampeth 
round  about  them  that  fear  Him,  and  delivereth  them"  (Ps. 
xxxiv.  7.)  "He  shall  give  His  angels  charge  concerning 
thee,  to  keep  thee  in  all  thy  ways ;  they  shall  bear  thee  up 
in  their  hands,  lest  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a  stone"  (Ps. 
xci.  11,  12.)  Similar  representations  of  angelic  agency  are 
found  in  New  Testament  Scripture,  and  come  out,  indeed, 
with  greater  prominence  there,  conformably  to  the  general 
character  and  design  of  the  Gospel,  in  rendering  more  patent 
the  connexion  between  this  lower  region  and  the  world  of 
spirits.  So  that  it  is  only  what  we  might  have  expected 
beforehand,  to  learn  that  our  Lord  in  the  days  of  His  flesh 
was  from  time  to  time  ministered  to  by  angels ;  that  on  as 
cending  to  the  regions  of  glory,  He  had  the  angels  made  sub 
ject  to  Him  for  carrying  forward  the  operations  of  His  king 
dom ;  that  commissions  of  importance  were  executed  through 
their  instrumentality  during  the  life-time  of  the  apostles;  and 
that,  generally,  they  are  declared  to  be  "all  ministering  spirits, 
sent  forth  to  minister  to  those  who  are  heirs  of  salvation" 
(Mark  i.  13;  Luke  xxii.  43;  Phil.  ii.  10  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  22;  Acts 
xii.;  Heb.  i.  14.) 

In  regard,  however,  to  the  kind  of  services  which  are  actu 
ally  rendered  to  believers  by  the  ministry  of  angels,  or  the 
benefits  which  may  justly  be  expected  from  it,  we  know  too 
little  of  the  nexus,  which  binds  together  in  any  particular  case 
the  world  of  sense  with  the  world  of  spirits,  to  be  able  with 
much  accuracy  to  determine.  Negatively,  there  are  definite 
boundaries  that  may  be  set  down;  we  must  hold  as  excluded 
from  their  agency  the  actual  communication  of  life  and  grace 
to  the  souls  of  men.  Nowhere  is  this  ascribed  to  them  ia 
Scripture;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  uniformly  represented  as  an 
essentially  Divine  work,  and,  as  such,  lying  beyond  the  agency 
of  created  beings.  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are  here  the  only 
effective  agents,  working,  in  so  far  as  subordinate  means  are 
employed,  through  a  human,  not  through  an  angelic  instru 
mentality.  The  things  which  come  within  the  sphere  of  an- 


244  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

gelic  ministrations,  bear  incidentally  upon  the  work  of  salva 
tion,  rather  than  directly  touch  it;  and  as  regards  the  ordi 
nary  history  of  the  Church  and  the  common  experience  of  be 
lievers,  they  have  to  do  with  the  averting  of  evils,  which  might 
too  seriously  affect  the  interests  of  righteousness,  or  the  bring 
ing  about  of  results  and  operations  in  the  world,  which  are 
fitted  to  promote  them.  When  it  is  reflected  how  much  even 
the  children  of  God  are  dependent  upon  the  circumstances  in 
which  they  are  placed,  and  how  much  for  the  cause  of  God, 
whether  in  the  world  at  large  or  in  the  case  of  single  individu 
als,  often  turns  upon  a  particular  event  in  Providence,  one 
can  easily  see  what  ample  room  there  may  be  in  the  world  for 
such  timely  and  subtle  influences  as  the  quick  messengers  of 
light  are  capable  of  imparting.  It  might  be  too  much  to  say, 
as  has  occasionally  been  said  by  divines,  and  seems  to  be  held 
by  Mr.  Kingsley,  that  all  the  active  powers  of  nature  are 
under  angelic  direction,  and  every  event — at  least  every  aus 
picious  event — is  owing  to  their  interference;  there  are  cer 
tainly  no  testimonies  in  Scripture  sufficient  to  warrant  so 
sweeping  an  inference.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally 
possible  to  err  in  the  opposite  direction;  and  as  we  have  ex 
plicit  information  in  Scripture  of  the  fact,  that  there  are  my 
riads  of  angelic  beings  in  heavenly  places,  who  are  continually 
ascending  and  descending  on  errands  of  mercy  for  men  on 
earth,  it  may  not  be  doubted,  that  in  many  a  change  which 
takes  place  around  us,  there  are  important  operations  per 
formed  by  them,  as  well  as  by  the  ostensible  actors,  and  by 
the  material  agencies  of  nature. 

But  whatever  individuals,  or  the  collective  body  of  believers, 
may  owe  to  this  source,  there  are  certain  laws  and  limitations, 
under  which  it  must  always  be  understood  to  be  conveyed. 
The  fundamental  ground  of  these  is,  that  the  efficiency  of 
angels  is  essentially  different  from  that  of  the  several  persons 
of  the  Godhead;  it  is  such  merely  as  one  finite  being  is  capa 
ble  of  exercising  toward  another.  Consequently,  it  never 
can  involve  any  violent  interference  with  the  natural  powers 
of  reason  in  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  it:  it  must  adapt 
itself  to  the  laws  of  reciprocal  action  established  between  finite 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  245 

beings,  and  so,  can  only  work  to  the  hand,  or  set  bounds  to 
the  actings  of  nature,  but  cannot  bring  into  operation  elements 
absolutely  new.  Hence,  as  a  further  necessary  deduction,  all 
that  is  done  by  angels  must  be  done  in  connexion  with,  and 
by  means  of  natural  causes;  and  only  by  intensifying,  or  in 
some  particular  way  directing  these,  can  they  exert  any  de 
cisive  influence  on  the  events  in  progress.  Thus,  at  the  pool 
of  Bethesda,  the  angel's  power  wrought  through  the  waters, 
not  independently  of  them  ;  at  Herod  Agrippa's  death,  through 
the  worms  that  consumed  him ;  at  the  jail  of  Philippi,  through 
the  earthquake  that  shook  the  foundations  of  the  building: — 
arid  if  thus  in  these  more  peculiar,  certainly  not  less  in  the 
more  regular  and  ordinary  interpositions  of  their  power.  But 
this  takes  nothing  from  the  comfort  or  efficacy  of  their  minis 
trations;  it  only  implies,  that  these  ministrations  are  capable 
of  being  viewed  apart  from  the  channels  through  which  they 
come,  and  that  the  beings  who  render  them  are  not  to  be  taken 
as  the  objects  of  personal  regard  or  adoring  reverence.  Hence, 
while  the  hearts  of  believers  are  cheered  by  the  thought  of 
the  ministry  of  angels,  the  worshipping  of  angels  has  from  the 
first  been  expressly  interdicted  (Col.  ii.  18;  Rev.  xxii.  9.) 

Various  fanciful  and  groundless  notions  have  been  enter 
tained  on  the  subject  of  angelic  ministrations,  and  have  sought 
for  countenance  in  isolated  statements  of  Scripture.  It  has 
been  held,  for  example,  that  a  part  of  their  number  are  sepa 
rated  for  the  special  work  of  praise  in  the  heavenly  places, 
and  observe  hours  of  devotion;  that  angels  act  at  times  as 
subordinate  intercessors,  mediating  between  believers  and 
Christ;  that  individual  angels  are  appointed  to  the  guardian 
ship  of  particular  kingdoms,  and  even  of  single  persons;  and 
that  they  have  also,  whether  individually  or  collectively,  a  sort 
of  charge  to  be  present  in  the  assemblies  of  the  saints.  As 
this  latter  class  of  notions  still  extensively  prevails,  and  has 
an  apparent  foundation  in  certain  passages  of  Scripture,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  subject  it  to  a  particular  examination. 

(1.)  In  regard  to  the  guardianship  or  protection  of  parti 
cular  kingdoms  by  individual  angels,  the  notion  can  scarcely, 
perhaps,  be  said  to  exist,  as  a  substantive  belief  in  the  present 

21* 


246  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

day,  in  Protestant  Christendom;  but  it  is  held  by  not  a  few 
interpreters  of  Scripture  as  a  doctrine  of  the  book  of  Daniel, 
though  not  a  doctrine  they  are  themselves  disposed  to  accredit. 
Rabbinical  writers  have  certainly  from  an  early  period  found 
it  there.  On  the  supposition,  that  Michael  was  a  created  an 
gel,  and  the  guardian  angel  of  the  Jews,  (designated  as  such, 
44  their  prince,")  coupled  with  the  further  supposition,  that 
what  is  said  in  the  same  book  of  the  prince  of  the  kingdom  of 
Persia,  who  is  represented  as  withstanding  Gabriel  for  twenty- 
on"e  days,  (x.  13,)  has  respect  to  another  angel,  exercising  a 
like  guardianship  over  the  Persian  empire: — on  these  suppo 
sitions,  the  notion  became  prevalent,  not  only  among  the  doc 
tors  of  the  synagogue,  but  also  among  the  Christian  fathers, 
from  whom  it  went  down,  like  other  crudities,  as  a  heritage 
to  the  Catholic  theologians,  that  the  several  states  or  king 
doms  of  the  earth  have  each  their  protecting  genius,  or  tute 
lary  angel — a  created,  but  high  and  powerful  intelligence. 
The  idea — as  the  divines  of  the  Reformation  justly  contended 
— is  at  variance  with  all  right  views  of  the  general  teaching 
of  Scripture  respecting  those  kingdoms,  which  are  represented 
as  in  a  condition  that  must  have  placed  them  beyond  the  pale 
of  any  such  guardianship,  even  if  it  had  existed;  nor  do  the 
particular  passages  leaned  upon,  when  fairly  interpreted,  coun 
tenance  the  idea  of  its  existence.  AVe  have  already  seen, 
how  the  proof  fails  in  respect  to  Michael,  he  not  being  an  an 
gel,  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  the  Lord  Himself  as  the  Angel 
of  the  Covenant.  He,  the  Jehovah-Mediator,  the  King  and 
Head  of  the  Old,  as  well  as  of  the  New  Dispensation,  was 
fitly  denominated  the  "^,  or  Prince  of  the  covenant-people. 
But  the  prince  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia,  who  stands,  by  way 
of  contrast,  over  against  this  Divine  Head  of  the  Theocracy, 
is  the  mere  earthly  potentate,  the  only  real  head  of  that  king 
dom.  Such  also  is  the  prince  of  Grecia.  afterwards  mentioned. 
The  Lord  in  the  heavens,  by  Ilis  angelic  agencies,  and  pro 
vidential  arrangements,  contends  with  these  earthly  powers 
and  dominions:  in  the  exercise  of  the  freedom  granted  them, 
and  the  resolute  application  of  the  resources  they  possessed, 
they  might  succeed  in  gaining  certain  advantages,  or  creating 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  247 

a  certain  delay,  but  in  such  an  unequal  contest  the  result  could 
not  be  long  doubtful;  and  the  victory  is  soon  announced  to 
be  on  the  Lord's  side.  This  is  the  substance  of  the  represen 
tation  in  Daniel,  which  contains  nothing  at  variance  with  the 
other  representations  in  Scripture,  nor  any  thing,  indeed,  pe 
culiar — unless  it  be  the  designation  of  the  heads  alike  of  the 
Divine  and  of  the  human  kingdoms  by  the  name  of  prince, 
instead  of  using  the  more  common  appellation,  king.  A  pe 
culiarity  scarcely  deserving  of  notice.1 

(2.)  The  idea  of  guardian-angels  for  each  particular  belie 
ver,  or,  as  it  is  often  put,  for  each  individual  child — the  na 
tural  child  in  the  first  instance,  then  the  spiritual — has  met 
with  much  more  general  acceptance  than  the  one  already  no 
ticed,  and  still  has  the  support  of  distinguished  commentators. 
It  is  chiefly  based  on  our  Lord's  statement  in  Matt,  xviii.  10, 
"  Take  heed  that  ye  despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones;  for 
I  say  unto  you,  that  in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold 
the  face  of  my  Father,  which  is  in  heaven."  Alford,  as  well 
as  Meyer,  holds  the  plain  teaching  of  the  passage  to  be,  that 
individuals  have  certain  angels  appointed  to  them  as  their  spe 
cial  guardians;  and  on  Acts  xii.  15,  where  he  again  refers  to 
the  passage,  he  affirms,  not  only  that  the  doctrine  of  guardian- 
angels  had  been  distinctly  asserted  by  our  Lord,  but  that  the 
disciples,  on  the  ground  of  His  teaching,  naturally  spoke  of 
Peter's  angel,  and  believed  that  the  guardian-angel  sometimes 
appeared  in  the  likeness  of  the  person  himself.  So  also  Stier, 
(on  Matt,  xviii.  10,)  while  he  admits,  that  the  language  points 
only  by  way  of  allusion  to  special  guardian-angels  of  persons, 
holds  the  doctrine  on  this  ground,  and  the  unanimous  sense 
of  the  Fathers,  to  be  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt.  "  Every 
child,"  he  affirms,  "has  his  angel  until  sin  drives  him  away, 
as  we  may  still  be  able  to  trace  in  the  reflection  of  the  an 
gelic  appearance  in  the  countenance  and  aspect  of  children. 
Every  believer,  again,  who  may  have  come  into  a  saved  con 
dition  through  the  grace  of  redemption,  gets,  as  a  new  spiri- 

1  For  a  similar  contrast  between  the  Divine  Head  of  the  Jewish  state,  and 
the  merely  earthly  heads  of  the  surrounding  states,  see  the  explanation  given 
in  Tart  Third  of  Isa.  vii.  14,  as  quoted  in  Matt.  i.  23. 


248  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

tual  child,  his  angel  again,  whom  now  he  especially  needs  in 
the  weakness  of  his  spiritual  commencement,  for  deeper-reach 
ing  experiences  of  guardianship  and  admonition,  than  weak 
and  foolish  children  in  times  of  bodily  danger."  I  am  no  way 
moved  by  these  high  authorities  and  confident  assertions;  for 
they  seem  to  me  to  impose  a  sense  upon  the  words  of  our  Lord, 
which  they  neither  necessarily  bear,  nor  naturally  convey. 
The  readiness  and  unanimity  with  which  the  Fathers  found 
in  them  the  doctrine  of  guardian-angels,  is  easily  understood 
from  the  universal  belief  in  the  heathen  world — a  belief  ac 
credited  and  often  largely  expatiated  upon  in  its  highest  phi 
losophy—of  attending  genii  or  demons  attached  to  single  per 
sons;  and  which  naturally  begat  in  the  Father?,  whose  early 
training  was  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  received  in  the  school 
of  heathenism,  a  predisposition  to  discover  the  same  doctrine 
in  a  Christian  form.  On  such  a  point  they  were  peculiarly 
disqualified  for  being  careful  and  discriminating  guides;  of 
which  the  following  comment  of  Jerome  on  the  passage  may 
serve  as  a  sufficient  proof:  "Because  their  angels  in  heaven 
always  see  the  face  of  the  Father:  the  great  dignity  of  souls, 
that  each  should  have  from  his  natural  birth  (ab  ortu  nativi- 
tatis)  an  angel  appointed  for  his  guardianship.  Whence  we 
read  in  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  Write  these  things  to  the  an 
gel  of  Ephesus,  Thyattra,  and  to  the  angels  of  the  other 
churches.  The  apostle  also  commands  the  heads  of  women  to 
be  veiled  in  the  churches,  on  account  of  the  angels."  How 
much  sounder  and  more  discriminating,  not  only  than  this 
confused  and  puerile  annotation,  but  also  than  the  interpre 
tations  of  the  modern  expositors  referred  to  above,  is  the  note 
of  Calvin?  "  The  view  taken  by  some  of  this  passage,  as  if 
it  described  to  each  believer  his  own  peculiar  angel,  is  with 
out  support.  For  the  words  of  Christ  do  not  import,  that  one 
angel  is  in  perpetuity  attached  to  this  person  or  that,  and  the 
notion  is  at  variance  with  the  whole  teaching  of  Scripture, 
which  testifies,  that  angels  encamp  round  about  the  righteous, 
and  not  to  one  angel  alone,  but  to  many  has  it  been  com 
manded,  to  protect  every  one  of  the  faithful.  Let  us  have 
done,  therefore,"  he  justly  adds,  "with  that  comment  con- 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  249 

cerning  a  good  and  evil  genius,  and  be  content  with  holding, 
that  to  angels  are  committed  the  care  of  the  whole  Church, 
so  that  they  can  bring  succour  to  individual  members  as  ne 
cessity  or  profit  may  require."  This  plainly  appears  to  be 
the  correct  view  of  the  passage.  It  does  not  speak  of  little 
children  simply  as  such,  but  of  believers  under  this  character 
(to  which  in  humility  and  lowliness  of  spirit  they  had  imme 
diately  before  been  assimilated ;)  nor  does  it  speak  of  individu 
al  relationships  subsisting  between  these  and  the  angels,  but 
of  the  common  interest  they  have  in  angelic  ministrations, 
which  extend  to  the  apparently  least  and  lowest  of  their  num 
ber.  But  of  a  separate  guardianship  for  each  individual  there 
is  not  a  word  dropt  here,  nor  in  any  other  part  of  Scripture. 
Even  in  Acts  xii.  7,  where  a  very  special  work  had  to  be  ac 
complished  for  Peter  by  the  ministry  of  an  angel,  there  is  no 
thing  of  the  historian's  own  that  implies  any  individual  or 
personal  relationship  of  the  one  to  the  other:  the  angel  is  not 
called  Peter's  angel,  nor  is  the  angel  represented  as  waiting 
upon  him  like  a  tutelary  guardian ;  on  the  contrary,  he  is  de 
signated  "the  angel  of  the  Lord,"  and  is  spoken  of  as  coming 
to  Peter,  to  do  the  particular  office  required,  and  again  de 
parting  from  him  when  it  was  done.  It  is  true,  the  inmates 
of  Mary's  house,  when  they  could  not  credit  the  report  of  the 
damsel,  that  Peter  himself  was  at  the  door,  said,  as  if  finding 
in  the  thought  the  only  conceivable  explanation  of  the  matter, 
"It  is  his  angel."  But  as  Ode  has  justly  stated  (De  Angelis, 
Sec.  viii.  c.  4,)  "It  is  not  every  thing  recorded  by  the  Evan 
gelists  as  spoken  by  the  Jews,  or  even  by  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  which  is  sound  and  worthy  of  credit.  Nor  can  what 
in  this  particular  case  was  true  of  Peter  be  affirmed  of  all  be 
lievers,  or  ought  it  to  be  so.  And,  indeed,  that  Peter  himself 
did  not  believe,  that  a  particular  angel  was  assigned  to  him 
for  guardianship,  clearly  enough  appears  from  this,  that  when 
Peter  got  out  of  the  prison,  and  followed  the  angel  as  hia 
guide,  he  did  not  as  yet  know  it  to  be  true,  that  an  angel  was 
the  actor,  but  thought  he  saw  a  vision;  and  at  length,  after 
the  departure  of  the  angel,  having  come  to  himself,  he  said, 
'Now  I  know  of  a  surety,  that  the  Lord  hath  sent  His  angel, 
and  delivered  me  from  the  hand  of  Herod.'" 


250  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

(3.)  The  last  notion  we  were  to   consider  respecting  the 
ministry  of  angels,  is  the  special  charge  they  are  supposed  to 
take  of  Christian  assemblies.     This  notion  rests  entirely  upon 
two  passages:  the  one,  Eccl.  v.  4-6,  which  has  already  been 
examined,  and  shown  to  have  no  proper  bearing  on  this,  or 
any   other   point  connected  with   angel   agency;    the   other, 
1  Cor.  xi.  10,  in  which  the   apostle  says,   "For   this   cause 
ought  the  woman  to  have  power  on  her  head,  because  of  the 
angels."     It  is  said  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  which  the 
apostle  introduces  on  the  subject  of  female  attire  in  the  pub 
lic  assemblies.     At  the  same   time,  it  is  proper  to  bear  in 
mind,  what  expositors  too  commonly  overlook,  that  the  imme 
diate  object  of  the  statement  is  of  a  general  kind,  and  has 
respect  to  the  relation  of  the  woman  to  the  man,  as  determined 
by  the  order  of  their  creation:  "For  the  man  is  not  of  the 
woman,  but  the  woman  of  the  man;  neither  was  the  man  cre 
ated   for  the  woman,  but   the  woman  for  the  man :  for  this 
cause  (namely,  on  account  of  that  relative  position  and  des 
tiny,)  ought  the  woman  to  have  power  on  her  head,  because 
of  the  angels."     It  is  plainly  the  attire  and  aspect  of  the 
woman,  as  indicative  of  her  proper  place,  that  the  apostle  has 
here  more  immediately  in  view,  and  not  merely  nor  directly 
her  appearance  and  bearing  in  the  church;  this  last  and  more 
specific  point  he  would  derive  simply  as  a  practical  conclusion 
from  the  other.     Now,  as  to  the  import  of  what  he  says  on 
that  other  and  more  general  subject,  there  can  be  little  doubt, 
that  what  is  meant  by  having  power  or  authority  (Kweia)  on 
the  head,  is  having  what  visibly  exhibited  that;  viz.  a  veiled, 
or  covered  appearance,  which  is  the  natural  symbol  of  a  de 
pendent  or  subordinate  position.     There   is   no  force   in  the 
objection  to  this,  that  it  is  rather  the  want  of  authority,  than 
the  possession  of  it,  which  is  ascribed  to  the  woman;  for  it 
proceeds  on  a  mistaken  view  of  the  expression,  as  if  the  apostle 
meant  she  had  the  power  to  use  it  as  her  own.     The  reverse, 
rather,  is  what  is  indicated.     The  expression  is  entirely  similar 
to  that  used  by  the  centurion  in  Matt.  viii.  9,  when  he  said  of 

himself,  "For  I  also  am  a  man  under  authority"  (onb  &o»- 
)— he  stood,  as  it  were,  under  its  law  and  ordination— 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  251 

having  a  right  and  a  call  to  do  whatever  it  authorized  him  to 
do — that,  but  no  more.  So  the  woman  here,  as  standing 
under  the  man  in  a  relation  of  subservience,  ought  (fape&et)  to 
have  authority  or  power  upon  her  head;  in  other  words,  some 
thing  in  the  very  attire  and  aspect  of  her  head  to  denote,  that 
authority  lay  upon  her.  Her  veiled  appearance — naturally, 
by  her  long  hair,  and  artificially,  by  an  appropriate  head 
dress — is  such  a  thing ;  it  is  a  token  of  respect  and  submission 
toward  the  higher  authority  lodged  in  the  man,  and  betokens 
that  it  is  hers  to  do  with  ministrations  of  service,  rather  than 
with  the  right  of  government  and  control. 

Plence  the  feminine  aspect  which,  in  the  ancient  ordinance 
of  the  Nazarite  vow,  the  person  bound  by  it  had  to  assume,  in 
regard  to  his  head.  The  Nazarite  was  one  who.  by  a  special 
vow,  placed  himself  in  strict  subservience  to  God;  the  au 
thority  of  God  rested  upon  him  in  a  manner  quite  peculiar; 
and,  to  mark  this,  he  had  to  let  his  hair  grow  like  a  woman's; 
so  that,  as  the  woman  in  relation  to  man,  so  he  in  relation  to 
God,  might  be  said  to  have  power  or  authority  on  his  head; 
and  the  parting  with  the  symbol  of  his  position  (as  in  the  case 
of  Samson)  was  in  effect  abandoning  the  covenant-engagement 
under  which  he  stood — breaking  loose  from  God. 

We  see,  then,  the  fitness  and  propriety  of  the  veiled  ap 
pearance  of  the  woman's  head — it  is  the  becoming  sign  of  her 
place  and  calling,  as  made  of  man,  and,  in  a  sense  also,  for 
man.  But  why  should  this  be  said  to  be  because,  or  for  the 
sake  of  the  angels?  Whatever  may  be  meant  by  the  ex 
pression,  one  thing  should  be  distinctly  understood  regarding 
it — that,  from  the  brief  and  abrupt  manner  in  which  the  al 
lusion  is  made — not  a  word  of  explanation  going  before  or 
coming  after — it  can  have  reference  to  no  recondite  or  myste 
rious  point — nothing  in  itself  of  doubtful  speculation,  or 
capable  of  being  ascertained  only  by  minute  and  laborious 
search.  Points  of  such  a  nature,  together  with  the  Rabbinical 
or  heathen  lore,  on  which  they  are  grounded,  must  be  out  of 
place  here,  as  the  allusion  (had  it  referred  to  such)  could  only 
have  tended  to  perplex  or  mislead.  Proceeding,  therefore, 
on  the  ground  now  laid  down,  we  have  to  dismiss  from  our 


252  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

minds  all  the  peculiar  and  unusual  applications  of  the  term 
angels  sometimes  adduced  by  commentators;  and  also  all 
fanciful  notions  regarding  the  acts  of  real  angels — such  as 
their  supposed  habit  of  veiling  their  faces  before  God  (which 
is  never  mentioned  of  angels,  strictly  so  called),  or  having  a 
sort  of  superintendence  and  oversight  of  Christian  assemblies 
(a  matter  also  nowhere  else  intimated  in  any  earlier  Scrip 
ture:)  and  we  have  simply  to  consider,  whether  there  be  any 
broad  and  palpable  facts  respecting  the  angelic  world,  which, 
without  violence  or  constraint,  may  be  fitly  brought  into 
juxtaposition  with  the  proper  place  and  bearing  of  women. 
Vvre  know  nothing  of  this  description,  unless  it  be  what  their 
very  name  imports — their  position  and  calling  as  ministering 
spirits  before  God,  from  which  one  section  of  them,  indeed, 
fell,  but  which  the  rest  kept,  to  their  honour  and  blessing. 
This,  however,  is  enough;  it  furnishes  precisely  the  link  of 
connexion  between  them  and  woman.  Her  place,  in  relation 
to  man,  is  like  that  of  the  angels  of  God ;  it  is  to  do  the  part 
of  a  ministering  agent  and  loving  help — not  independently  to 
rule  and  scheme  for  herself.  It  is  by  abiding  under  law  to 
man,  that  she  becomes  either  a  subject  or  an  instrument  of 
blessing.  Hence,  when  she  fell,  it  was  by  departing  from 
this  order,  by  attempting  to  act  an  independent  part,  as  if  no 
yoke  of  authority  lay  upon  her,  and  she  might  be  an  authority 
and  a  law  to  herself — quitting  her  appointed  place  of  minis 
tering,  for  the  coveted  place  of  independent  action.  So,  too, 
was  it,  in  the  higher  regions  of  existence,  with  the  angels  that 
lost  their  first  estate;  they  strove,  in  like  manner,  against  the 
prime  law  of  their  being,  which  was  to  minister  and  serve, 
and  aspired  to  be  and  act  as  from  themselves.  By  this  vain 
and  wicked  attempt  they  fell;  and  the  fall  of  Eve,  through 
their  instrumentality,  was  but  the  image  and  echo  of  their 
own.  Now,  is  it  unnatural  to  suppose  that  the  apostle,  while 
tracing  up  the  matter  concerning  woman's  place  and  bearing 
in  society  to  the  origin  and  fountain  of  things,  should  also 
have  reminded  them  of  these  instructive  facts?  should  have 
pointed  their  thoughts  to  the  higher  region  of  spirits?  The 
order  here — he  virtually  said  to  them — the  order  of  things  in 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  253 

this  lower  world,  serves  as  an  image  of  the  heavenly.  Rela 
tions  of  superiority  and  subservience  exist  there  as  well  as 
here ;  and  the  harmony  and  blessedness  of  both  worlds  alike 
depend  upon  these  relations  being  duly  kept;  to  disregard 
them,  is  the  sure  road  to  confusion  and  every  evil  work.  Let 
the  woman,  therefore,  recognising  this,  and  remembering  how 
the  evil  that  originated  in  ambitious  striving  in  the  heavenly 
places,  renewed  itself  on  earth  by  the  like  spirit  taking  pos 
session  of  her  bosom — feel  that  it  is  good  for  her  to  wear  per 
petually  the  badge  of  subjection  to  authority.  It  is  at  once 
safe  and  proper  for  her  to  retain  it;  and  so,  instead  of  con 
stantly  repeating  the  catastrophe  of  the  fallen  angels,  she  will 
show  her  readiness  to  fulfil  that  angel-relationship,  with  its 
ministrations  of  service,  for  which  she  was  brought  into  being, 
and  exhibit  before  the  blessed  ministers  of  light  a  reflection  of 
their  own  happy  order  and  loving  obedience. 

It  may  be  added,  in  respect  to  the  false  views  of  angelic 
ministration  which  we  have  combated,  and  as  an  additional 
proof  of  their  contrariety  to  the  truth  of  Scripture,  that  the 
countenance  they  too  commonly  received  from  the  Fathers 
produced  its  natural  fruit  throughout  the  early  Church  in  a 
prevailing  tendency  to  angel-worship.  The  Fathers,  however, 
opposed  this  tendency,  and  sometimes  by  formal  synodal  acts 
denounced  the  practice,  in  which  it  showed  itself,  of  dedi 
cating  particular  churches  to  certain  angels,  and  calling  them 
by  their  names.  In  the  Tightness  of  this  opposition,  the  in 
consistency  with  which  it  was  connected  may  be  overlooked; 
but  it  were  hard  to  see  how,  if  the  guardianship  of  distinct 
regions,  of  particular  persons,  and  of  Christian  assemblies, 
were  assigned  to  individual  angels,  these  should  not  have  re 
ceived  a  share  in  the  semi-divine  honour  that  was  paid  to  the 
saints.  Angelic  adoration  and  saint-worship  are  but  different 
forms  of  the  same  idolatrous  tendency. 

V.  The  doctrine  of  the  fallen  angels,  and  their  agency 
among  men,  though  it  should  not  be  totally  omitted  here,  yet 
does  not  call  for  lengthened  consideration;  since,  while  it 
gives  rise  to  many  metaphysical  questions  and  baffling  diffi 
culties,  these  have  comparatively  little  to  do  with  the  inter- 
22 


254  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

pretation  of  Scripture.  For  the  most  part,  the  passages  in 
which  the  fallen  angels  are  referred  to,  are  plain  enough  in 
their  meaning;  and  it  is  the  subjects  themselves  discoursed  of, 
not  the  language  used  in  discoursing  of  them,  which  more 
peculiarly  exercise  the  powers  of  the  mind.  At  present,  it 
will  be  enough  to  indicate  a  few  points  nearly  connected  with, 
or  naturally  growing  out  of,  the  principles  that  have  been  un 
folded  regarding  the  angels  of  God.  (1.)  It  is,  first  of  all,  to 
be  held  fast  respecting  them,  that,  in  common  with  those  who 
still  retain  their  place  in  light  and  glory,  they  were  originally 
created  good.  The  teaching  of  Scripture  throughout  is  alto 
gether  opposed  to  the  idea,  which,  from  the  earliest  times, 
was  so  extensively  prevalent  in  the  East,  of  an  independent, 
uncreated  principle  of  evil,  whether  as  embodied  in  one,  or 
in  a  multiplicity  of  concrete  existences.  Every  being  in  the 
universe,  that  is  not  God,  is  a  part  of  the  creation  of  God ; 
and,  as  His  works  were  all,  like  Himself,  very  good,  the  evil 
that  now  appears  in  any  of  them  must  have  been  a  perversion 
of  the  good,  not  an  original  and  inherent  malignity.  And,  in 
the  case  of  the  evil  angels,  the  fact  of  a  fall  from  a  preceding 
good  state  is  distinctly  asserted  (John  viii.  44;  Jude  6;  2  Pet. 
ii.  4.)  But  nothing  is  said  as  to  the  period  of  this  fall,  whether 
it  came  immediately  after  their  creation,  or  after  the  lapse  of 
ages — nor  as  to  the  circumstances  that  gave  rise  to  it,  and  the 
precise  form.it  assumed.  The  expression  of  our  Lord  in  John's 
Gospel,  that  Satan  was  a  liar  from  the  beginning  (a^1  <Y'>$  o) 
does  not  necessarily  refer  to  the  commencement  of  his  own  ex 
istence,  but  seems  rather,  from  the  connexion,  to  point  to  the 
beginning  of  this  world's  history.  It  is  more  natural  for  us 
to  suppose,  that  the  fall  of  the  angels,  like  that  of  our  first 
parents,  was  nearly  coeval  with  their  existence,  as  it  is  next 
to  impossible  for  us  to  conceive  how  they  should,  for  any 
length  of  time,  have  enjoyed  the  intuition  and  the  blessedness 
of  God,  without  having  all  the  principles  of  goodness  in  their 
natures  strengthened  and  rendered  continually  less  capable  of 
turning  aside  to  evil; — but  this  is  a  region  into  which  Scrip 
ture  does  not  conduct  us,  and  it  is  best  to  avoid  it  as  one  that 
can  only  involve  matters  of  uncertain  speculation.  (2.)  The 


AND  DOCTRINE  OF  ANGELS.  255 

total  depravity,  and  consequent  misery  of  the  evil  angels,  is 
also  constantly  asserted  in  Scripture.  In  both  respects  they 
are  represented  as  the  antithesis  of  the  good  and  blessed 
angels.  Inveterately  hostile  to  God  Himself,  whatever  is  of 
God  excites  their  enmity  and  opposition :  falsehood  instead  of 
truth,  instead  of  love,  selfishness,  hatred  and  malice,  have  be 
come  the  elements  of  their  active  being ;  and,  themselves  utterly 
estranged  from  all  good,  they  appear  incapable  even  of  ap 
prehending  the  feelings  of  those  who  love  it,  and  actuated  only 
by  the  insatiate  desire  of,  in  every  possible  way,  resisting  and 
overthrowing  it.  Hence  their  policy  is  characterized  by  min 
gled  intelligence  and  blindness,  cunning  and  folly,  according 
as  it  is  directed  to  those  who,  like  themselves,  are  inclined  to 
the  evil,  or  to  such  as  are  wedded  to  the  good:  with  the  one 
it  is  skilfully  laid  and  reaches  its  aim,  with  the  other  it  per 
petually  miscalculates  and  defeats  itself.  Of  all  this  the  re 
corded  actings  of  Satan  and  his  angels,  in  the  history  of  our 
Lord  and  His  apostles,  supply  ample  proof  (comp.  besides 
Matt.  xiii.  39;  1  Pet.  v.  8;  Eph.  vi.  12;  Heb.  ii.  14.)  So 
that  sinning  and  doing  evil  may  be  said  to  have  become  a 
moral  necessity  in  their  natures,  as  love  and  holiness  with  the 
elect  angels.  "Hence  they  are  necessarily  miserable.  Torn 
loose  from  the  universal  centre  of  life,  without  being  able  to 
find  it  in  themselves;  by  the  feeling  of  inward  void,  ever  driven 
to  the  outward  world,  and  yet  in  irreconcilable  hostility  to  it 
and  themselves;  eternally  shunning,  and  never  escaping,  the 
presence  of  God;  always  endeavouring  to  destroy,  and  always 
compelled  to  promote  His  purposes;  instead  of  joy  in  the 
beatific  vision  of  the  Divine  glory,  having  a  never-satisfied 
longing  for  an  end  they  never  reach;  instead  of  hope,  the  un 
ending  oscillation  between  fear  and  despair;  instead  of  love, 
an  impotent  hatred  of  God,  their  fellows,  and  themselves: — 
can  the  fearful  condemnation  of  the  last  judgment,  the  thrust 
ing  down  into  the  bottomless  pit  of  destruction  (Rev.  xx.  10,) 
add  any  thing  to  the  anguish  of  such  a  condition,  excepting 
that  they  shall  there  see  the  kingdom  of  God  for  ever  delivered 
from  their  assaults,  their  vain  presumption  that  they  can  de 
stroy  or  impede  it  scattered  to  the  winds,  leaving  to  them  only 


256  SCRIPTURAL  DESIGNATIONS 

the  ever-gnawing  despair  of  an  inward  rage,  which  cannot 
spend  itself  upon  anything  without,  and  is,  therefore,  for  ever 
undeceived  as  to  its  own  impotence!"— (Twesten's  Lectures, 
see  Bib.  Sacra,  i.  793.)     (3.)  Lastly,  in  regard  to  the  agency 
of  the  evil  angels,  and  the  mode  in  which  it  is  exercised  in  the 
world,  the  general  limitations  already  deduced  from  Scripture 
in  respect  to  the  good,  undoubtedly  hold  also  here.     Nega 
tively,  it  cannot  assume  a  substantive  existence  or  separate 
action  of  its  own,  nor  come  into  direct  contact  with  the  minds 
of  men.     It  has  no  other  way  of  operating,  either  upon  men's 
souls  or  bodies,  but  by  entering  into  the   series  of  second 
causes,  and  giving  such  additional  potence  to  these  as  it  may 
consist  with  the  Divine  purpose  to  admit  of  being  employed. 
So  that  the  temptations  of  the  powers  of  evil,  and  the  effects 
of  every  kind  wrought  by  them,  are  not  (in  ordinary  cases) 
to  be  distinguished  from  the  operation  of  the  moral  and  physi 
cal  laws  which  prevail  in  the  world.     No  record  is  contained 
of  external  injuries  inflicted  by  them,  except  by  means  of  ex 
ternal  causes,  which  they  were  allowed,   in  some  unknown 
manner,  to  intensify-as  in  the  case  of  Job's  calamities,  or 
Paul's  thorn  in  the  flesh.     And  the  moral  hardening,  or  in 
tense  addictedness  to  evil,  which  is  sometimes  ascribed  to  the 
working  of  Satan,  or  his  fellows,  always  appears  as  the  result 
of  a  previous  course  of  wickedness,  and  as  consisting  simply 
in  a  more  thorough  abandonment  to  the  carnal  lusts  and  af 
fections,  which  have  gained  dominion  of  the  heart.     The  case 
of  Saul  in  the  Old  Testament,  of  Judas,  Ananias,  and  Sapphira, 
the  followers  of  Antichrist,  etc.,  in  the  New,  fully  confirm 
this  (1  Sam.  xvi.  14,  xviii.  10;  Luke  xxii.  3;  Acts  v.  1- 
2  Thess  ii.  11,  etc.)     The  nearest  contact  with  the  mdivulua 
that  any  of  the  notices  of  Scripture  give  reason  for  supposing 
to  have  ever  taken  place,  or  to  be  compatible  with  the  natu 
of  things,  lies  in  some  such  operation  on  the  bodily  organism, 
as  is  fitted  to  inflame  the  existing  tendencies  to  evil,  and  shut 
their  unhappy  victim  more  entirely  up  to  their  dominion.  _  And 
hence  the  utter  fallacy  of  the  whole  theory  and  practice  of 
witchcraft,  which  proceeded  on  the  assumption  of  direct  per- 
Bonal  intercourse  with  the  Wicked  One.     That  the  possibility 


THE  NAMES  OF  CHRIST.  257 

of  such  a  traffic  should  have  been  believed  in  Christian  times, 
and  especially  that  it  should  have  led  to  the  sacrifice  of 
thousands  of  lives  in  every  state  of  European  Christendom, 
is  one  of  the  greatest  scandals  in  the  history  of  modern  civili 
zation. 


SECTION  THIRD. 

OX  THE  NAMES  OF  CHRIST  IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE,  AND, 

O'^    AND     Ylo-'    TOrJ 


ALL  the  names  of  the  Redeemer  were  originally  appella 
tives.  They  expressed  some  leading  property,  or  exhibited 
some  specific  aspect  of  His  person,  His  mission,  or  His  king 
dom.  The  term  Christ  is  no  exception,  nor  even  Jesus,  which 
simply  denotes  Him  as  emphatically  the  Saviour  —  although 
being  the  individual  name  borne  by  Him  from  His  infancy, 
it  was  familiarly  used,  and  might  from  the  first  be  regarded 
as  a  proper  name.  The  Old  Testament  designations  not  only 
were  originally,  but  for  the  most  part  continued  still  to  retain 
an  appellative  character;  such  v  for  example,  as  The  Angel 
of  the  Lord,  The  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  Immanuel,  The 
Prince,  The  Son  of  Gf-od.  But  in  others  the  appellative  passed, 
even  in  Old  Testament  times,  into  a  kind  of  proper  name; 
and,  as  a  consequence,  the  article,  which  was  originally  pre 
fixed  to  them,  ultimately  fell  away.  In  one  of  them,  indeed, 
Michael  —  which  has  already  been  investigated  in  connexion 
with  the  subject  of  angels  —  the  article  was  not  prefixed;  for 
in  the  only  book  where  it  occurs  (Daniel)  it  was  employed 
substantially  as  a  proper  name;  yet  it  was  really  an  appella 
tive,  and,  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  more  distinctly  the 
Divine  nature  and  exalted  position  of  Messiah,  was  preferred 
to  some  of  the  earlier  and  more  common  designations  used  by 
the  prophets.  As  a  proper  example,  however,  of  the  change 
from  the  appellative  to  the  individual  form,  let  us  trace  the 
manner  in  which  the  term  Zemach,  or  Branch,  came  to  be  ap- 

22* 


258  THE  NAMES  OF   CHRIST 

plied  definitely  and  personally  to  Christ.  Isaiah  first  speaks 
in  ch.  iv.  2,  with  reference  probably  to  Messianic  times,  but 
in  a  somewhat  general  way,  of  the  Lord's  branch  (njrp  rv?^) 
which  he  said  was  yet  to  be  beautiful  and  glorious;  and  at 
ch.  xi.  1,  a  little  more  specifically,  at  least  with  a  more  special 
reference  to  the  house  of  David,  and  an  individual  member 
of  that  house,  he  gives  promise  of  a  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a 
branch,  or  sucker,  from  his  roots.  Here,  however,  the  word 
ZemacTi  is  not  used,  but  non  and  "ttJ ,  showing  that  such  terms 
were  employed  simply  in  an  appellative  sense,  arid  merely 
because  indicating  a  certain  characteristic  of  the  future  scion 
of  the  royal  house.  With  a  still  nearer  approach  to  the  per 
sonal,  Jeremiah,  in  ch.  xxiii.  5,  prophesies  of  a  time,  when  the 
Lord  would  raise  up  to  David  a  righteous  branch  (Zemach,) 
and  a  king  (viz.  the  branch  already  mentioned)  should  reign 
and  prosper.  And,  finally,  when  through  these  earlier  pro 
phecies  the  appellative  had  come,  in  the  general  apprehension, 
to  be  associated  with  the  one  object  of  hope  and  expectation, 
to  whom  it  pre-eminently  pointed,  it  is  used  as  a  sort  of  proper 
name  by  the  prophet  Zechariah — though  still  with  an  obvious 
reference  to  its  appellative  import:  ch.  iii.  8,  "Behold,  I 
bring  my  servant,  Branch;"  and  again,  ch.  vi.  12,  "Thus 
saith  the  Lord,  Behold  a  man,  whose  name  is  Branch." — Much 
in  the  same  manner  Melek,  king,  is  occasionally  used ;  for 
example  in  Ps.  xlv.  1,  Ps.  Ixxii.  1,  where  the  theme  is  that 
King  by  way  of  eminence,  to  whom  even  then  the  eye  of  faith 
looked  forward  as  the  crowning-point  of  Israel's  glory ;  it  is 
applied  to  Him  individually,  and  without  the  article,  as  a 
strictly  personal  designation. 

This  progression,  however,  from  the  appellative  to  the  pro 
per  use  of  names,  appears  still  more  distinctly  in  the  epithet, 
by  which  in  ancient  times  the  coming  Redeemer  was  most 
commonly  known — the  Messiah,  or,  adopting  the  Greek  form, 
the  Christ.  In  its  primary  import  and  application  there  was 
nothing  strictly  personal,  or  even  very  specific,  in  the  term. 
A  participle  or  verbal  adjective  from  rw?  to  anoint,  it  was 
applied  to  any  one  so  anointed;  for  example,  to  the  high- 
priest,  who  is  called  in  Lev.  iv.  3,  "  the  priest  the  anointed," 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  259 


(hamaschiach^  rendered  in  the  Septuagint  6 
At  a  later  period  it  is  similarly  used  of  Saul  by  David  —  not 
of  Saul  as  an  individual,  but  of  him  as  the  possessor  of  a  dig 
nity,  to  which  he  had  been  set  apart  by  a  solemn  act  of  con 
secration  ;  as  such,  he  is  designated  6  jf/wrrdc  TOL>  Kopioo^  the 
christ  or  anointed  of  the  Lord,  (1  Sam.  xii.  8,  5,  etc.)  It 
was  Hannah  who  first  gave  the  term  this  kingly  direction, 
when,  at  the  conclusion  of  her  song  of  praise,  she  proclaimed 
the  Lord's  intention  to  give  "strength  to  His  king,  and  exalt 
the  horn  of  His  anointed  (meschiho)"  evidently  using  His 
Messiah,  or  anointed,  as  synonymous  with  His  king  in  the 
preceding  clause;  and  singularly  enough,  doing  so,  before 
there  was  an  actual  king  in  Israel,  and  when  as  yet  the  act 
of  anointing  had  not  been  applied  to  any  one  filling  the 
kingly  function.  The  prophetic  spirit,  in  which  her  song  was 
conceived,  and  the  elevation  especially  of  its  closing  sentences, 
seem  to  point  above  and  beyond  the  immediate  future,  and  to 
bear  respect  to  that  universal  King,  of  whom  Jacob  had  al 
ready  spoken  as  the  Shiloh,  and  to  whom  the  gathering  of 
the  peoples  was  to  be  —  whom  Balaam  also  described  as  "the 
Star  that  should  come  out  of  Jacob,  and  the  Sceptre  that 
should  rise  out  of  Israel,  who  was  to  smite  the  corners  of 
Moab,  and  destroy  all  the  children  of  tumult."  This  was  the 
child  of  hope  more  especially  in  the  eye  of  Hannah  ;  for  the 
anointed  King,  of  whom  she  speaks,  was  to  stand  pre-eminent 
above  the  states  and  powers  of  the  world,  and  through  Him 
the  adversaries  of  the  Lord  were  to  be  broken,  and  the  ends 
of  the  earth  to  be  judged.  Not  long  after  we  find  the  term 
Messiah  applied  in  the  same  manner  by  David  —  not  to  a  merely 
human  and  earthly  monarch,  but  to  the  Son  of  the  Highest,  to 
whom  as  such  the  heritage  of  the  world,  to  its  utmost  bounds, 
by  Divine  right  belongs.  And  at  length  it  became  so  appro 
priated  to  this  higher  use,  in  the  diction  of  the  Spirit  and  the 
expectations  of  the  people,  that  its  other  possible  applications 
were  lost  sight  of;  it  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  distinctive 
name  of  the  promised  Saviour  —  as  in  Dan.  ix.  25,  "Know, 
therefore,  and  understand,  that  from  the  going  forth  of  the 
commandment  to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem,  unto  Mes- 


260  THE  NAMES  OF  CHRIST 

siali.  Prince  "  (no  article ;")  and  again  in  the  next  verse,  "  And 
after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  Messiah  be  cut  off." 

These  remarks  will  explain  some  apparent  grammatical  ano 
malies  in  the  New  Testament  use  of  the  term  Xpto-cbz.  But 
before  quitting  the  Old  Testament  usage,  it  is  not  unimportant 
to  notice,  that  there  are  two  or  three  passages,  in  which  the 
term  is  applied  to  persons  not  precisely  included  in  the  cases 
already  noticed ;  applications  which  have  given  rise  to  the 
idea,  that  the  term  was  loosely  extended  to  include  any  per 
son  of  note,  and  in  particular  the  collective  people  of  Israel. 
This  is  a  mistaken  view,  and  loses  its  apparent  plausibility, 
when  respect  is  had  to  the  symbolical  import  of  anointing  with 
oil,  out  of  which  the  word  Messiah  arose.  Such  anointing, 
as  a  religious  ceremony,  was  always  symbolical  of  the  commu 
nication  of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Thus  the  anointing 
of  the  tabernacle  and  all  its  furniture  bespoke  the  indwelling 
of  the  Spirit  for  purposes  of  life  and  blessing  among  the  mem 
bers  of  the  Theocracy.  Hence,  when  David  was  anointed  to 
be  king  in  the  room  of  Saul,  it  is  immediately  said,  that  "the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him  from  that  day  forward,  and 
that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  departed  from  Saul,"  (1  6am.  xvi. 
13,  14;)  and  David  himself,  when  by  his  iniquity  he  had  for 
feited  his  title  to  the  place  he  held  in  the  kingdom,  prays  that 
God  would  not  take  His  Holy  Spirit  from  him,  (Ps.  li.) — 
would  not  deal  with  him  as  He  had  dealt  with  Saul,  and  leave 
his  anointing  a  shell  without  a  kernel.  Still  more  explicitly 
Isaiah,  pointing  to  gospel  times,  and  personating  the  Messiah 
himself,  says,  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because 
He  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  glad  tidings  to  the  meek," 
(ch.  Ixi.  1) — the  possession  of  the  Spirit  because  of  the  anoint 
ing;  as  if  the  one  necessarily  inferred  the  other;  and,  indeed, 
in  this  case  the  reality  alone  was  made  account  of;  the  sym 
bol  was  dropt  as  no  longer  needed.  And,  to  mention  no  more, 
in  the  vision  presented  to  Zechariah,  ch.  iv.,  there  is  first  the 
symbol  of  two  olive-trees,  pouring  a  perpetual  stream  of  oil 
into  the  candle-stick,  with  its  seven  branches — emblems  of 
the  church;  and  then  the  explanation  of  the  symbol  in  what 
is  said  to  Zerubbabcl,  "  Not  by  might,  nor  by  power,  but  by 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  2G1 

My  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts:" — So  that  the  presence 
of  the  Spirit,  pervading  the  affairs  of  the  covenant,  and  carry 
ing  these  triumphantly  over  the  difficulties  and  dangers  around 
them,  is  the  reality  indicated  by  the  oil  that  flowed  from  the 
olive-trees  into  the  candlestick. 

Now,  it  is  by  a  reference  to  this  symbolical  import  of  the 
practice  of  anointing  that  the  passages  in  question  are  to  be 
understood  and  explained.  One  of  them  is  Isa.  xlv.  1,  where 
Cyrus  is  designated  by  the  name  of  Messiah  ("Thus  saith  the 
Lord  to  His  anointed,  to  Cyrus;")  so  designated,  however, 
not  from  his  being  simply  a  prince  or  a  ruler,  but  from  the 
peculiar  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the  covenant-people, 
and  the  important  service  he  rendered  to  their  interests.  On 
these  accounts  he  was  justly  regarded  as  one  possessed  of  a 
certain  measure  of  the  Spirit,  having  the  reality,  though  not 
the  outward  symbol  of  an  anointing,  which  qualified  him  for 
discerning  in  some  degree  the  truth  of  God,  and  for  acting  as 
God's  chosen  instrument  at  an  important  crisis  in  the  affairs 
of  His  Church.  In  the  judicious  language  of  Yitringa,  "The 
anointed  person  here  is  one  who  was  separated  by  the  Divine 
counsel,  and  ordained  to  accomplish  a  matter  that  pertained 
to  the  glory  of  God,  and  was  furnished  for  it  from  above  with 
the  necessary  gifts ;  among  which  were  his  justice,  his  regard 
for  the  -Divine  Being,  his  prudence,  fortitude,  mildness,  and 
humanity;  so  that  he  could  not  seem  to  be  unworthy  of  being 
made  an  illustrious  means  of  executing  the  counsels  of  God." 
Again,  in  Hab.  iii.  13,  it  is  said,  "Thou  wentest  forth  for  the 
salvation  (help)  of  Thy  people,  and  for  the  salvation  of  Thine 
anointed"  (Sept.  royc  Xptffwjz  aou;)  where  the  anointed,  in 
the  last  clause,  is  often  viewed  as  synonymous  with  people  in 
the  first.  But  this  is  erroneous;  the  former  expression  points 
to  the  God-anointed  king  of  the  people,  in  whose  behalf  the 
Lord  is  often  also  in  the  Psalms  represented  as  coming,  or 
entreated  to  come,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  deliverance 
(Ps.  xxviii.  8,  xx.  6.)  Finally,  in  Psal.  cv.  15,  it  is  said  re 
specting  the  patriarchs,  "Touch  not  Mine  anointed,  and  do 
My  prophets  no  harm;"  and  the  reference  is  still  of  the  same 
kind — it  points  to  those  heads  of  the  Jewish  nation  as  vessels 


262  THE  NAMES  OF  CHRIST 

and  instruments  of  God's  Spirit,  to  whom  were  communicated 
revelations  of  the  Divine  will,  and  by  whom  were  accomplished 
the  more  peculiar  purposes  of  Heaven:  on  which  account  also 
Abraham  is  expressly  called  a  prophet  (Gen.  xx.  7.)  To  style 
thus  the  patriarchal  heads  of  the  covenant-people,  and  even 
Cyrus  the  heathen  prince,  by  the  name  of  God's  anointed,  is 
itself  convincing  evidence  of  the  respect  that  was  had,  in  Old 
Testament  times,  to  the  reality  in  the  symbol,  and  shows  how, 
where  the  external  form  of  anointing  had  failed,  this  might 
still  be  regarded  as  virtually  present,  if  the  things  signified 
by  it  had  actually  taken  effect. 

To  return,  however,  to  our  more  immediate  object,  we  have 
seen  that  while  the  term  Messiah  was  properly  appellative, 
yet,  toward  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  writings,  it  came 
to  be  used  of  the  expected  Redeemer  much  as  a  proper  name, 
and  hence,  naturally,  without  the  article;  still,  not  as  if  it 
thereby  lost  its  appellative  import,  but  only  because  this  im 
port  was  seen  concentrating  all  its  fulness  in  Him,  so  that  He 
alone  seemed  worthy  to  bear  the  appellation.  It  should  not, 
therefore,  excite  any  surprise;  it  is  rather  in  accordance  with 
what  might  have  been  expected,  if,  sometimes  at  least,  and 
especially  when  persons  spoke,  who  were  peculiarly  under  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  or  who  had  no  doubt  as  to  the  indivi 
dual  to  whom  the  name  properly  belonged,  it  is  found  to  be 
similarly  used  in  New  Testament  Scripture.  It  is  in  reality 
so  used  on  the  very  first  occasion  on  which  Xptarbz  occurs  in 
the  Gospels,  viz.,  when  the  angels  announced  to  the  shepherds 
on  the  plains  of  Bethlehem  that  there  had  been  born  a  Sa 
viour,  oc  iff  rev  XpeffToz  A'iy)foc,  "who  is  Christ,  Lord"  (Luke 
ii.  11.)  In  like  manner,  the  woman  of  Samaria,  when  speak 
ing,  not  of  any  definite  individual,  but  of  the  ideal  Messiah, 
or  the  specific,  though  still  unknown  individual,  in  whom  the 
idea  was  to  be  realized,  uses  the  term  absolutely,  or  as  a  pro 
per  name,  "I  know  (she  said,  John  iv.  25)  that  Messias  comes, 
who  is  called  Christ  (6  /c^o//svoc  XpeffT^:)  when  he  shall  have 
come,  He  will  tell  us  all  things."  So,  yet  again,  Jesus  Him 
self  in  the  only  passage  in  which  He  is  recorded  to  have  ap 
plied  the  term  directly  to  Himself,  John  xvii.  8,  "And  Jesus 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  263 

Christ/whom  Thou  hast  sent."  Here  especially  commentators 
have  often  found  a  difficulty,  from  not  seeing  the  matter  in 
its  proper  light;  and  Dr.  Campbell  even  suspects,  in  the  face 
of  all  the  MSS.,  that  the  article  has  somehow  been  lost  before 
XptGTfo.  He  might,  however,  as  well  have  suspected  a  like 
omission  in  the  address  of  the  angels  to  the  shepherds,  or  in 
Dan.  ix.  24,  25,  before  Messiah.  The  same  principle  accounts 
for  the  omission  in  all  the  cases,  and  satisfactorily  explains  it; 
viz.,  the  distinctive  application  of  the  term  Messiah,  even  be 
fore  the  close  of  Old  Testament  Scripture,  to  the  promised 
Redeemer,  which  rendered  it  substantially  a  proper  name, 
when  used  by  those  who  looked  with  some  degree  of  confidence 
to  the  individual  that  was  entitled  to  bear  it. 

But  from  the  circumstances  connected  with  our  Lord's  ap 
pearance  in  the  world,  which  were  such  as  to  occasion  doubts 
in  many  minds  respecting  His  Messiahship,  it  was  quite  na 
tural  that  when  the  term  was  used  during  the  period  of  His 
earthly  sojourn,  it  should  not  commonly  have  been  employed 
as  a  proper  name,  but  should  rather  have  been  taken  in  its 
appellative  sense,  and  as  only  with  a  greater  or  less  degree  of 
probability  applicable  to  the  Saviour.  The  question,  whicq 
at  the  time  either  consciously  agitated,  or  silently  occurred 
to  men's  minds,  was,  whether  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  en 
titled  to  be  owned  as  the  Messiah;  whether  He  was  in- reality 
the  person,  in  whom  the  characteristics  and  properties  implied 
in  that  designation  were  to  be  found.  Hence,  being  com 
monly  used  with  reference  to  the  solution  of  such  a  question, 
the  name  Messiah,  or  Christ,  usually  has  the  article  prefixed, 
till  after  the  period  of  the  resurrection,  when  all  doubt  or  un 
certainty  vanished  from  the  minds  of  His  followers,  and  the 
name  began,  equally  with  Jesus,  to  be  appropriated  to  our 
Lord  as  a  strictly  personal  designation.  We  can  thus  mark 
a  general  progress  in  the  usage  of  the  sacred  writers,  and  a 
diversity  in  respect  to  A'^^ror,  quite  similar  to  that,  which 
was  noticed  in  the  Old  Testament  respecting  Messiah:  an  ear 
lier  use,  in  which  respect  is  had  more  to  the  appellative  im 
port,  and  a  later,  in  which  the  word  comes  chiefly  to  be  ap 
plied  as  a  proper  name.  And  accordingly  in  the  Gospels  it 


264  THE  NAMES  OP   CHRIST 

is  but  rarely  found  without  the  article,  while  it  is  almost  as 
rarely  found  with  the  article  in  the  Epistles. 

This  more  advanced  stage  of  matters,  when  Christ  as  well 
as  Jesus  had  come  to  be  used  as  a  proper  name,  had  already 
entered  when  the  Gospels  were  written.  Hence  we  find  the 
Evangelists,  at  the  beginning  of  their  narratives,  and  when 
speaking  from  the  point  of  view  which  had  then  been  reached, 
employing  the  term  Christ  in  as  personal  a  manner  as  Jesus. 
Thus  Matthew,  at  the  beginning  of  his  genealogy,  "The  book 
of  the  generation  'lycrou  Kpta-cov"  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  again 
at  the  close  of  it,  "Jacob  begat  Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary, 
of  whom  was  born  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ"  (6  As-yofjisvoz 
X()CGTOZ.}  In  like  manner  Mark  heads  his  Gospel,  "The  be 
ginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  God."  So  also 
John  in  ch.  i.  17,  "  The  law  was  given  by  Moses ;  grace  and 
truth  came  by"  Jesus  Christ."  But  immediately  after  such 
introductory  statements,  when  they  begin  to  report  what  per 
sons  thought  and  spake,  while  the  events  of  Gospel  history 
were  in  progress,  we  mark  in  the  use  of  the  article  the  regard 
men  had  to  the  appellative  import  of  the  word.  Thus  in  John 
i.  20,  the  Baptist  is  reported  as  confessing,  that  he  was  "not 
the  Christ;"  and  at  ver.  42,  Andrew  says  to  Peter,  "We  have 
found  the  Messias."  In  Matt.  ii.  3,  Herod  demands  of  the 
chief  priests  and  scribes,  "Where  the  Christ  is  born;"  i.e.  the 
person  to  whom  that  appellation  should  really  belong.  And 
Peter  in  his  memorable  confession  says,  "We  believe  that 
Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 

It  would  undoubtedly  have  been  better,  and  would  have 
contributed  to  the  more  easy  and  distinct  understanding  of 
some  passages  in  New  Testament  Scripture,  if  our  translators 
had  been  more  generally  observant  of  the  difference  in  style 
now  under  consideration,  and  had  more  commonly  rendered 
the  article  when  it  exists  in  the  original.  We  miss  it  particu 
larly  in  some  passages  of  the  Acts — as  at  ch.  iv.  42,  "They 
ceased  not  teaching  and  preaching  Jesus  Christ,"  properly, 
Jesus  the  Christ,  meaning,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ;  ch.  xvii.  3, 
"This  Jesus  whom  I  preach  to  you  is  Christ;"  ch.  xviii.  28, 
"Showing  by  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  Christ;"  where, 
in  both  passages,  the  meaning  would  evidently  gain  in  distinct- 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  265 

ness  by  inserting  the  article,  as  in  the  original,  "That  Jesus 
is  the  Christ."  At  the  same  time,  as  the  name,  even  when 
it  became  a  kind  of  personal  designation,  always  bore  a  refe 
rence  to  its  original  import,  so  it  never  wholly  loses  this  in  the 
minds  of  thoughtful  readers  of  the  Bible;  and  there  are  pro 
bably  not  very  many,  at  least  of  serious  and  thoughtful 
readers,  who  are  in  the  position  described  by  Dr.  Campbell, 
when  he  says,  that  they  consider  Jesus  Christ  as  no  other 
than  the  name  and  surname  of  the  same  person,  and  that  it 
would  sound  all  one  to  them  to  say,  that  Paul  testified  that 
Christ  was  Jesus,  as  that  Jesus  was  Christ.1  No  one  could 
possibly  be  insensible  to  the  difference  in  these  statements, 
who  reads  with  ordinary  attention  the  authorized  version — 
excepting  in  the  sense,  which  would  not  suit  Dr.  Campbell's 
purpose,  of  ascribing  an  appellative  import  to  Jesus  as  well 
as  Christ.  In  that  case  it  would  be  much  the  same  to  say, 
that  Jesus  or  Saviour  is  Christ,  and  that  Christ  or  Messias  is 
Jesus.  All,  however,  that  can  with  propriety  be  affirmed,  is, 
that  the  omission  of  the  article  in  such  cases  renders  the 
meaning  less  palpable  and  obvious  than  it  would  otherwise 
have  been. 

Even  when  the  word  Christ  was  passing,  or  had  already 
passed  into  a  sort  of  personal  designation,  pains  were  taken 
by  the  apostles  to  keep  up  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples  an 
acquaintance  with  its  proper  import.  Thus  Peter  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost  speaks  of  God  having  made  the  Jesus  who  had 
been  so  recently  crucified  both  Lord  and  Christ — xal  Kuptov 
y.at  Xptarbv;  and,  somewhat  later,  the  assembled  company  of 
apostles,  after  the  liberation  of  Peter  and  John,  say  in  their 
joint  address  to  God,  "Thy  holy  child  Jesus,  whom  Thou 
didst  christen,"  or  anoint,  (ou  Zyjiao.z,  Acts  iv.  27.)  Still 
more  explicitly  was  this  done  in  the  address,  of  Peter  to  the 
household  of  Cornelius,  when,  after  briefly  adverting  to  the  ge 
neral  outlines  of  our  Lord's  history,  and  styling  Him  simply, 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  he  adds,  "how  God  anointed  him  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  power,"  (d>c  H%ptasv  abrw  b  6eb^  UvebfjiaTt 
^•l-fiuj  xac  duvdfjizf,  Acts  x.  38.)  Indeed,  the  verb  %pl<09  on  this 

1  Preliminary  Dissertations. 

23 


266  THE  NAMES  OP   CHRIST 

very  account — that  is,  because  of  its  symbolical  connexion  with 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  particular  with  the  name  and 
consecration  of  Jesus — itself  acquired  a  kind  of  sacred  value, 
and  in  New  Testament  Scripture  is  only  used  of  this  higher, 
spiritual  anointing.  With  one  exception,  it  is  never  used  but 
of  Christ  Himself,  as  the  Spirit-replenished  servant  of  Jeho 
vah ;  and  even  that  exception  is  not  without  a  close  respect 
to  the  same.  It  is  in  2  Cor.  i.  21,  where  the  apostle  says, 
"He  that  establisheth  us  together  with  you  into  Christ,  and 
hath  anointed  us,  is  God,"  (b  os  fteftaccov  fyjiaz  crw  b^v  eiz 
Xpta-bv,  xal  %plffaz  fyiu.z,  $£0s,) — that  is,  He  has  so  knit  and 
consolidated  us  into  Christ,  that  we  have  ourselves  become 
Christ-like,  replenished  with  a  portion  of  His  enlightening 
and  sanctifying  Spirit.  The  verb  0Ue/^>a)  is  the  word  employed 
in  reference  to  anointings  of  an  inferior  sort,  done  for  the  sake 
of  refreshment  merely,  and  without  any  sacred  design. 

In  some  of  the  later  passages  of  the  New  Testament  this 
reference  to  the  original  meaning  of  the  term  is  undoubtedly 
lost  sight  of;  and  Jesus  is  designated  Christ,  when,  as  far  as 
we  can  see,  Lord,  or  Redeemer,  might  have  been  equally  ap 
propriate.  Thus  in  Eph.  v.  21,  according  to  the  correct 
reading,  we  have  " being  subject  to  one  another  in  fear  of 
Christ,"  (Iv  <f>6f)(f)  XptffTOu;)  Christ  being  simply  an  appella 
tion  of  the  Divine  and  glorified  Redeemer,  as  the  object  of 
humble  reverence  and  submissive  regard.  Passages  of  this 
sort,  however,  are  not  very  frequent;  and  where  there  is  no 
distinct,  there  often  is  a  concealed  or  implied  reference  to  the 
appellative  import  of  the  term.  It  is  to  this,  that  we  would 
ascribe  the  occasional  employment  of  Christ,  rather  than  any 
other  name  of  the  Redeemer,  to  denote  the  organic  union 
between  Him  and  His  people.  Thus  in  Gal.  iv.  19,  the 
apostle  says,  "My  little  children,  of  whom  I  travail  in  birth 
again,  until  Christ  be  formed  in  you;"  and  in  Eph.  iv.  20, 
"Ye  have  not  so  learned  Christ."  In  these  passages  we  are 
not  to  dilute  the  term  Christ,  so  as  to  take  it  for  a  kind  of 
concrete  designation  of  Christian  doctrine;  we  are  rather  to 
regard  it  as  pointing  to  that  intimate  spiritual  fellowship  be 
tween  the  soul  and  Christ,  which  renders  genuine  believers  so 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  267 

many  images  of  Himself — smaller  vessels  and  partial  embodi 
ments  of  that  grace,  which  in  infinite  fulness  and  perfection 
is  treasured  up  in  Him.  So  again  in  1  Cor.  xii.  12,  \ve  read, 
"For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the 
members  of  that  one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body;  so 
also  is  Christ;"  i.  e.,  Christ  and  those  who  are  His — the 
whole  corporate  society  of  the  faithful;  they  are  together 
designated  by  the  name  of  Christ,  as  having  their  spiritual 
being  in  Him,  and  in  Him  receiving  the  unction  of  the  same 
Spirit.  It  is  quite  possible  also,  and  even  probable,  that  out 
of  this  import  and  use  of  the  word  Xptarb^  may  have  grown 
that  common  name  Xpeffreayoi^  Christians,  by  which  the  fol 
lowers  of  Jesus  became  so  early,  and  have  so  uniformly  been 
distinguished.  We  are  told  in  Acts  xi.  26,  that  they  were  so 
called  first  in  Antioch;  and  Dr.  Trench,  (in  bis  Study  of 
Words,  p.  98,)  as  well  as  many  in  former  times,  have  thought 
that  the  name  was  imposed  upon  them  by  their  heathen  ad 
versaries,  and  consequently  at  first  had  somewhat  of  the 
aspect  of  a  nickname.  We  cannot  positively  affirm  it  was 
otherwise ;  but  the  phraseology  of  St.  Paul  approaches  so  very 
near  to  the  use  of  the  word  as  a  common  designation,  that  if 
it  did  not  actually  originate  in  the  Church  itself,  we  might 
almost  say,  it  should  have  done  so;  nor,  assuredly,  would  it 
have  become  so  readily  owned,  and  so  extensively  employed 
among  the  Christian  communities,  unless  it  had  either  spon 
taneously  arisen  from  within,  or  as  soon  as  heard  awakened  a 
response  among  the  members  of  the  Church.  Hence,  as  con 
scious  of  no  reproach  in  the  appellation,  yea,  rather  as  owning 
arid  accrediting  its  propriety,  the  Apostle  Peter  says,  "But 
if  any  of  you  suffer  as  a  Christian — o»c  Xpi0Tco.vbz — let  him 
not  be  ashamed,"  (1  Pet.  iv.  16.)  And  as  regards  the  spiritual 
use  to  be  made  of  the  appellation,  the  most  natural  and  ap 
propriate  turn,  in  our  judgment,  to  be  given  to  the  matter,  is, 
to  direct  attention — not  to  the  supposed  accident  of  the  origin 
of  the  term — but  to  the  real  meaning  involved  in  it,  when 
rightly  understood ;  in  other  words,  to  the  fulness  of  grace 
and  blessing  which  ought  to  distinguish  those  who  have  their 
calling  and  designation  from  Him,  who  is  THE  CHRIST — the 
Spirit-anointed  Saviour. 


2G8  THE  NAMES  OF   CHRIST 

Another  thing  to  be  noted,  in  connexion  with  this  name  and 
its  cognate  terms,  is  the  rise  that  took  place  from  the  outward 
and  symbolical,  to  the  inward  and  spiritual.  This  had  begun, 
as  we  have  noticed,  even  in  Old  Testament  times;  persons 
were  even  then  designated  as  Christ's  or  anointed  ones,  who 
had  received  no  outward  consecration  with  holy  oil.  The  ap 
plication  of  the  term  to  the  patriarchs  in  Psalm  cv.,  and  to 
Cyrus  by  Isaiah,  was  manifestly  of  this  description;  and  in 
the  New  Testament  the  external  symbol,  so  far  as  regards 
the  use  of  %pUo  in  all  its  forms,  falls  entirely  away;  it  is  ap 
plied  only  to  the  inward  communication  and  endowment  with 
the  Spirit's  grace,  which  was  symbolized  by  the  external 
anointings  with  holy  oil.  The  spiritual  reality  was  so  well  un 
derstood,  that  while  the  old  language  was  retained,  the  ancient 
symbol  was  felt  to  be  no  longer  needed;  so  that  the  anointed 
one  now  is  simply  the  vessel  of  grace — Jesus  pre-eminently 
and  completely,  because  in  Him  resides  the  plenitude  of  the 
Spirit's  grace;  then,  subordinately  to  Him,  the  members  of 
His  spiritual  body,  because  out  of  His  fulness  they  receive 
grace  for  grace. 

It  is  proper,  still  further,  to  note  the  relative  order  and 
gradation,  that  appears  in  the  names  usually  applied  to  our 
Lord  as  regards  their  individual  import  and  common  use.  The 
first  name  by  which  lie  was  known  and  addressed  was  Jesus, 
which,  though  of  deep  and  comprehensive  import,  and  requiring 
the  exercise  of  lively  faith  and  spiritual  discernment,  if  used 
with  a  proper  knowledge  and  apprehension  of  its  meaning, 
was  yet  for  the  most  part  regarded  as  simply  a  proper  name. 
When  called  Jesus  of  Nazareth  by  the  men  of  His  generation, 
our  Lord  was  merely  distinguished  from  the  other  persons  of 
the  place  and  neighbourhood.  The  first  question  that  came 
to  be  stirred  in  men's  bosoms,  was,  whether  He  was  entitled 
to  have  the  further  name  of  the  Christ,  or  simply  to  be  called 
Jesus  Christ.  As  soon  as  inquirers  attained  to  satisfaction  on 
that  point,  they  took  their  place  among  His  disciples;  they 
recognised  Him  as  the  promised  Messiah,  and  confessed  Him 
as  such.  It  was  a  further  question,  however,  and  one  not  so 
readily  decided,  what  personally  this  Christ  was  ?  Was  He 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  269 

simply  a  man,  distinguished  from  other  men  by  superior  gifts 
of  nature  and  of  grace?     Or  was  He,  in  a  sense  altogether 
peculiar,  the  Son  of  God?     A  considerable  time  elapsed  be 
fore  even  the  immediate  followers  of  Christ  reached  the  pro 
per  position  of  knowledge  and  conviction  upon  this  point;  and 
the  first  distinct,  or,  at  least,   thoroughly  intelligent   and   as 
sured  utterance  of  the  truth,  was  that  which   came  from  the 
lips  of  Peter,  when  he  said,  "  We  believe,  that  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."     If  he  had  stopt  at  "  the 
Christ,"  there  had  been  nothing  very  remarkable  in  the  con 
fession ;  Philip  virtually  confessed  as  much  at  the  outset,  when 
he  said  to  Nathanael,  "  We  have  found  Him,  of  whom  Moses 
in  the  law  and  the  prophets  wrote,  Jesus  the  Son  of  Joseph;" 
and  by  Andrew,  when  he  informed  Simon,   "We  have  found 
the   Messiah."     But  it  was   greatly  more  to  be  able  to  add? 
with   a  full  understanding   and  conviction  of  what  was  said, 
"the  Son  of  the  living  God."     Peter  appears  to  have   had 
precedence  of  the  other  disciples  in  the  clearness  and  strength 
of  his  convictions  on  the  subject.     Nearly  the  same  confession 
in  words  had  been  uttered  at  an  early  period  by  Nathanael, 
when  he  exclaimed,  "  Rabbi,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  Thou 
art  the  King  of  Israel;"  but  we  can  scarcely  doubt  that  his 
mind  was  still  imperfectly  enlightened  regarding  the  person 
of  Jesus,  and  that  he  really  confessed  to  nothing  more  than 
some  kind  of  indefinite  superiority  in  Jesus  over  ordinary  men. 
But  the  truth  had  been  communicated  to  Peter  by  special  re 
velation,  and  had  taken  firm  possession  of  his  soul;  and  the 
Sonship   of  Jesus  to  which  he  confessed  was  that  essentially 
Divine  one,  of  which  Christ  spake  when  He  said,  "All  things 
are  delivered  to  Me  of  My  Father;  and  no  man  knoweth  the 
Son  but  the  Father;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  Him," 
(Matt.  xi.  27.)     And  it  was,  beyond   doubt,  in  this  higher 
sense,  which  had  been  indicated  in  various  discourses  of  Christ, 
that  the  Jewish  high  priest  used  it,  when  he  solemnly  put  the 
question  to  Jesus,  whether  He  were   the   Christ,  the  Son  of 
God;  and  on  receiving  an  affirmative  answer,  condemned  Him 
for  blasphemy.     So  that  to   confess  Jesus,   as  at  once   the 

23* 


270  THE  NAMES  OF  CHRIST 

Christ,  and  the  Son  of  God,  was  to  own  Him  to  be  all  that 
the  prophets  foretold  He  should  be — all  that  His  Divine  mis 
sion  required  Him  actually  to  be;  it  declared  Him  to  be  pos 
sessed  of  a  nature  essentially  Divine,  as  well  as  human,  and 
thereby  rendered  capable  of  receiving  the  entire  fulness  of 
the  Spirit,  to  qualify  Him  for  executing  in  every  part  the 
Work  of  man's  redemption. 

It  is  somewhat  singular,  that  our  Lord  Himself  never,  ex 
cept  on  one  occasion — the  one  already  referred  to  in  John 
xvii.  3 — appropriated  the  names,  Jesus  and  Christ;  and  only 
on  a  very  few  occasions,  and  even  then  somewhat  obliquely, 
did  He  take  to  Himself  the  title  of  the  Son  of  God,  (Matt. 
xi.  27;  John  v.  25,  ix.  35,  xi.  4.)  The  epithet,  under  which 
He  usually  spoke  of  Himself,  was  that  of  the  "  Son  of  Man." 
There  are  on  record  upwards  of  forty  distinct  occasions  on 
which  He  is  represented  to  have  employed  it  in  His  discourses. 
Yet  it  was  never  applied  to  Him  by  the  evangelists,  when  re 
lating  the  events  of  His  earthly  ministry ;  nor  is  He  ever  men 
tioned  as  having  been  addressed  under  this  title  either  by 
friends  or  foes.  Stephen,  however,  after  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  made  use  of  it,  when  in  ecstasy  he  exclaimed,  "Behold, 
I  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Son  of  Man  standing  on 
the  right  hand  of  God,"  (Acts  vii.  56.)  On  no  other  occasion 
do  we  find  it  used,  either  of  Christ  or  to  Him,  in  New  Testa 
ment  Scripture — unless  we  may  so  regard  what  is  written  in 
Rev.  i.  13,  where  the  Apocalyptist  speaks  of  seeing  in  vision 
one  O/JLOCOV  otw  avdptb-ov,  "like  to," — not,  as  in  the  autho 
rized  version,  the,  but — "a  son  of  man."  It  is  in  itself  a 
quite  general  expression,  although  it  doubtless  points  to  the 
glorified  Redeemer.  This,  however,  we  only  learn  from  what 
follows:  from  the  connexion  it  appears,  that  the  individual, 
who  in  the  vision  bore  such  resemblance  to  a  son  of  man,  was 
none  other  than  the  once  crucified  but  now  exalted  Saviour; 
but  the  description,  "  like  a  son  of  man,"  is  not  in  itself  more 
specific  and  personal  than  the  corresponding  phrase  in  Daniel, 
ch.  vii.  13 — where,  after  the  vision  of  the  four  wild  beasts 
rising  from  the  sea,  and  representing  the  four  successive 
worldly  monarchies,  one  appeared  in  the  night  visions  "like 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  271 

a  son  of  man,  (no  article  in  the  original,)  coming  with  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  and  receiving  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a 
kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages  should  serve 
Him." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  passage  in  Daniel  is  the 
fundamental  one,  on  which  not  only  that  in  Revelation,  but 
also  our  Lord's  favourite  and  familiar  use  of  the  phrase  in 
question,  is  based;  and  without  knowing  the  precise  import 
and  bearing  of  the  representation  in  the  prophet,  it  is  impos 
sible  rightly  to  apprehend  the  reason  and  object  of  the  lan 
guage  derived  from  it  in  New  Testament  times.  There  are 
two  .points  of  contrast  brought  out  in  the  prophet  between  the 
representative  of  the  fifth,  the  really  universal  and  everlasting 
kingdom,  and  the  representatives  of  the  earthly  kingdoms 
that  preceded.  These  latter  are  all  exhibited  as  deriving 
their  origin  from  beneath ;  they  appeared  coming  out  of  the 
sea,  that  is  from  the  world,  in  its  heaving,  troubled,  and  agi 
tated  state ;  and  not  only  so,  but  they,  one  and  all,  bore  the 
aspect  and  possessed  the  nature  of  wild  beasts,  having  only 
earthly  properties  about  them,  and  these  of  the  more  savage 
and  selfish  description.  In  marked  contrast  to  both  of  these 
broad  characteristics,  the  representative  of  the  fifth  and  ulti 
mate  kingdom  was  seen  descending  from  above,  borne  on  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  the  distinctive  chariot  of  Deity,  and  bearing 
the  aspect,  not  of  a  nameless  monster,  or  savage  tenant  of 
the  forest,  but  of  "the  human  face  Divine" — ideal  humanity. 
Introduced  in  such  a  connexion,  and  with  the  obvious  design 
of  exhibiting  such  a  contrast,  it  is  surely  a  meagre  representa 
tion  of  its  import,  which  is  given  by  many  commentators — for 
example,  by  Dr.  Campbell,  when  it  is  said,  "Nothing  appears 
to  be  pointed  out  by  the  circumstance,  'one  like  a  son  of  man,' 
but  that  he  would  be  a  human,  not  an  angelical,  or  any  other 
kind  of  being ;  for,  in  the  Oriental  idiom,  son  of  man  and  man 
are  terms  equivalent."1  Be  it  so;  the  question  still  remains, 
Why  only  in  respect  to  this  last — the  sole  world-embracing 
and  perpetual  monarchy — was  there  seen  the  attractive  form 

1  Dissertations,  v.  13. 


272  THE  NAMES  OF   CHRIST 

of  a  human  likeness,  while  the  others,  which  were  certainlj 
to  be  constituted  and  governed  by  men,  had  their  representa 
tion  in  so  many  irrational  and  ferocious  wild  beasts?     And 
why,  possessing  the  likeness  of  a  man,  should  the  former  have 
appeared,  not  coming  from  beneath,  like  the  others,  cast  up 
by  the  heaving  convulsions  of  a  tumultuous  and  troubled  world, 
but  descending  from  the  lofty  elevation  of  a  higher  region, 
and  a  serener  atmosphere?     These  things  assuredly  were  de 
signed  to  have  their  correspondences  in  the  realities  to  which 
they  pointed;  and  the  difference  indicated  is  but  poorly  made 
out  in  the  further  statement  of  Dr.  Campbell,  when  he  says, 
"This  kingdom,  which  God  Himself  was  .to  erect,  is  contra 
distinguished  from  all  the  rest  by  the  figure  of  a  man,  in  order 
to  denote,  that  whereas  violence,  in  some  shape  or  other,  would 
bo  the  principal  means  by  which  those  merely  secular  king 
doms  should  be  established,  and.  terror  the  principal  motive 
by  which  submission  should  be  enforced,  it  would  be  quite 
otherwise  in  that  spiritual  kingdom  to  be  erected  by  the  An 
cient  of  Days,  wherein  every  thing  should  be  suited  to  man's 
rational  and  moral  nature;  affection  should  be  the  prevailing 
motive  to  obedience,  and  persuasion  the  means  of  producing 
it."     True,  so  far  as  it  goes;  but  the  question  is,  How  was 
such  a  spiritual  and  Divine  kingdom  to  be  set  up  and  admi 
nistered  among  men?     And  when  a  prophetic  representation 
was  given  of  the  fundamental  difference  betwixt  it  and  the 
merely  worldly  kingdoms  that  were  to  precede,  was  the  human 
element  alone  thought  of?     Did  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  mean 
to  exhibit  a  simple  man  as  destined  to  realize,  on  the  wide  field 
of  the  world,  the  proper  ideal  of  humanity?     That  certainly 
is  by  no  means  likely;  and  if  the  whole  vision  of  the  prophet 
is  taken  into  account,  is  plainly  not  the  case.     The  simply 
terrene  or  human  kingdoms  are  there  represented  by  the  wild 
beasts;  and  if  one  like  a  son  of  man  is  brought  in  to  represent 
another  and  better  kingdom,  and  one  both  receiving  His  king 
dom  from  above,  and  descending  thence,  as  on  the  chariot  of 
Deity,  to  take  possession  of  His  dominion,  the  obvious  infer 
ence  and  conclusion  is,  that  here  at  last  Divine  and  human 
•were  to  be  intermingled  in  blessed  harmony,  and  that  till  such 


IN  NEW  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE.  273 

intermingling  took  place,  and  the  kingdom  based  on  it  was 
properly  erected,  the  ideal  of  humanity  should  remain  an  ideal 
still,  bestial  properties  should  really  have  the  ascendant,  and 
should  retain  their  sway,  till  they  were  dislodged  by  the  mani 
festation  and  working  of  Him  who,  with  Divine  aid,  should 
restore  humanity  to  its  proper  place  and  function  in  the  world. 
Such  is  the  fair  and  natural  interpretation  of  that  part  of 
Daniel's  vision  which  relates  to  the  fifth  monarchy,  and  its 
representation  under  one  bearing  the  likeness  of  a  son  of  man. 
And  it  sufficiently  explains  our  Lord's  partiality  for  this  epi 
thet,  when  speaking  of  Himself,  and  some  of  the  more  peculiar 
connexions  in  which  he  employed  it.  He  was  announced  to 
Israel  by  His  forerunner  as  coming  to  set  up  "the  kingdom  of 
God,"  or  "of  heaven."  It  was  this  kingdom  which  John  de 
clared  was  at  hand — in  other  words,  the  fifth  monarchy  of 
Daniel,  which  was  to  come  from  abqve,  and  which  was  destined 
to  supplant  every  other.  How  natural,  then,  for  our  Lord, 
in  order  to  keep  prominently  before  men  this  idea,  and  im 
press  upon  their  minds  correct  views  of  the  nature  of  His  mis 
sion,  to  appropriate  to  Himself  that  peculiar  epithet,  "Son  of 
Man,"  under  which  this  kingdom  has  been  prophetically  ex 
hibited,  as  contradistinguished  from  the  kingdoms  of  the  world? 
In  so  appropriating  this  epithet,  He  by  no  means  claimed 
simple  humanity  to  Himself;  on  the  contrary,  He  emphatically 
pointed  to  that  union  of  the  Divine  with  the  human,  which 
was  to  form  the  peculiar  characteristic  of  this  kingdom,  as 
that  through  which  its  higher  ideal  was  to  be  realized.  He 
was  the  Son  of  Man  personified,  to  whom  prophetically,  and 
in  vision,  were  committed  the  powers  and  destinies  of  the 
kingdom,  which  was  of  God — the  kingdom,  in  which  hu 
manity  was  to  be  made  to  re-assume  its  proper  type.  Hence 
we  can  readily  explain,  and  see  also  the  full  propriety  of  such 
representations  as  that  in  John  i.  51 — the  first  occasion  on 
which  the  phrase  in  question  is  recorded  to  have  been  used — 
"Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  see  heaven  opened, 
and  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending  on  the  Son 
of  Man" — on  Him,  as  uniting,  according  to  Daniel's  vision, 
heaven  and  earth,  the  Divine  and  the  human.  Or  that  in 


274  THE  NAMES  OF  CHRIST. 

John  iii.  13,  "And  no  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven  but 
He  that  came  down  from  heaven,  who  is  in  heaven" — a  seem 
ing  contradiction,  if  taken  hy  itself,  hut,  when  placed  in  con 
nexion  with  the  passage  in  Daniel,  embodying  a  most  import 
ant  truth.  For  it  tells  us  that  no  one,  who  is  simply  a  man, 
fallen  and  degenerate,  ever  has  ascended  to  heaven,  or  can 
do  so — the  tendency  is  all  in  the  opposite  direction — not  up 
wards  to  heaven,  but  downwards  to  hell.  The  Son  of  Man, 
however,  in  whom  the  idea  of  humanity  was  to  be  realized,  is 
of  a  higher  mould;  He  belongs  to  the  heavenly — that  is  His 
proper  region ;  and  wrhen  he  appears  (as  in  the  person  of  Christ 
He  did  appear)  on  earth,  it  is  to  exhibit  in  Himself  what  He 
had  received  from  the  Father,  and  raise  others  to  the  posses 
sion  of  the  same.  By  the  very  title  He  assumed,  He  claimed 
to  be  the  New  Man,  the  Lord  from  heaven,  come  for  the  pur 
pose  of  making  all  things  new,  and  conforming  men  to  the 
image  of  Himself.  Hence,  too,  the  peculiar  expression,  em 
bodying  another  seeming  incongruity,  in  John  v.  27,  where 
our  Lord  says  of  Himself,  that  the  Father  "has  given  Him 
authority  also  to  execute  judgment,  because  He  is  Son  of  Man." 
To  execute  judgment  is,  undoubtedly,  a  Divine  work;  and  yet 
it  is  committed  to  Christ  precisely  because  He  is  the  Son  of 
Man.  How?  Not,  assuredly,  because  in  Him  there  were 
simply  human  properties;  but  because  there  was  the  realiza 
tion  of  that  form  in  Daniel's  vision,  which  represented  the 
nature  and  aspect  of  the  Divine  kingdom  among  men — the 
Son  of  Man,  in  whom  humanity  was  to  attain  to  its  proper 
completeness,  and  in  whom,  that  it  might  do  so,  the  human 
should  be  interpenetrated  by  the  Divine,  and  hold  its  powers 
and  commission  direct  from  a  higher  sphere.  He,  therefore, 
could  execute  judgment;  nay,  as  concentrating  in  Himself  the 
properties  of  the  kingdom,  it  was  His  peculiar  province  to  do 
it;  since  to  man,  as  thus  allied  to  heaven,  God  has  put  in  sub 
jection  the  powers  of  tho  world  to  come.  And  there  is  still 
another  peculiar  passage,  which  derives  a  clear  and  instructive 
light  from  the  same  reference  to  the  original  passage  in  Daniel ; 
it  is  Matt.  xxvi.  64.  The  high  priest  had  adjured  our  Lord 
to  confess  whether  He  were  indeed  "the  Christ,  the  Son  of 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  275 

God;"  and  His  reply  was,  "Thou  hast  said  [rightly;]  never 
theless  [rather,  moreover,  in  addition  to  what  I  have  declared] 
I  say  unto  you,  Hereafter  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting 
on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven."  It  is  very  striking,  how  our  Lord  here  drops  the 
title,  "Son  of  God,"  to  which  He  had  confessed  when  put  by 
another,  and  immediately  reverts  to  His  wonted  appellation, 
"Son  of  Man;"  while,  at  the  same  time,  He  affirms  of  this 
Son  of  Man  what  might  have  seemed  to  be  more  fitly  asso 
ciated  with  the  Son  of  God.  The  explanation  is  found  in  the 
passage  of  Daniel,  the  very  language  and  imagery  of  which 
it  adopts;  and  our  Lord  simply  asserts  Himself  to  be  the  Head 
and  Founder  of  that  Divine  kingdom,  which  was  presented  to 
the  eye  of  Daniel  in  vision,  under  the  appearance  of  one  like 
a  Son  of  Man  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven;  but  which  a 
moment's  reflection  might  have  convinced  any  one  He  could 
be,  only  by,  at  the  same  time,  being  in  the  strict  and  proper 
sense  the  Son  of  God. 


SECTION   FOURTH. 

ON  THE  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF  CERTAIN  TERM?,  WHICH  EXPRESS 
AN  ANTAGONISTIC  RELATION  TO  CHRIST'S  PERSON  AND.  AU 
THORITY,  <f>£Udodidd<TX<ZJ((K9  fisud 


IT  is  more  especially  the  last  two  of  the  terms  just  men 
tioned  which  call  for  particular  investigation;  but  as  the  other 
two  are  nearly  related  to  them,  and  belong  substantially  to 
the  same  line,  we  shall  in  the  first  instance  direct  some  atten 
tion  to  them. 

1.  The  two  may  be  taken  together,  as  they  appear  to  be 
used  in  senses  not  materially  different.  So  early  as  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  we  find  our  Lord  warning  His  disciples 
against  false  prophets:  ~poaiy^=~s.  dnb  TCOU  (pz'jdoxpcHpYjTcov 
(Matt.  vii.  15;)  and  the  test  He  suggests  to  be  applied  to 


276  TERMS  EXPRESSIVE  OF 

them  is  one  chiefly  of  character;  "They  come,"  says  He,  "in 
sheep's  clothing,  but  within  they  are  ravening  wolves.''     The 
warning  is  again  given  in  our  Lord's  discourse  respecting  the 
last  times,  "And  many  false  prophets  shall  arise  and  deceive 
many"  (Matt.  xxiv.  11;)  and  further  on  at  verse  24,  He  re 
turns  to  the  subject,  coupling  false  prophets  with  false  Christs, 
who,  He  said,  "should  arise,  and  give  great  signs  and  won 
ders,  so  as  to  deceive,  if  it  were  possible,  even  the  elect." 
From  these  intimations,  we  are  led  to  understand,  that  the 
appearance  of  such  characters  in  considerable  numbers  was.  to 
form  one  of  the  precursors  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Jewish 
state,  and  was  also  to  be  a  characteristic  generally  of  the  time 
of  the  end.     As  to  the  precise  import,  however,  to  be  attached 
to  the  terms,  we  must  bring  under  review  one  or  two  of  the 
passages,  in  which  they  are  mentioned  as  actually  appearing. 
Thus  In  Acts  xiii.  6,  the  Jew,  Barjesus,  who  was  with  Sergius 
Paulus,  the  proconsul  of  Cyprus,  and  who  there  withstood 
Paul's  preaching,  is  called  ^zodonpotfrr^;  and  partly  in  ex 
planation  of  this  designation  he  is  styled  Elymas  the  magos— 
'/;/y//«C  6  /m-j-oz— two  words  of  different  languages  expressing 
substantially  tne  same  meaning;  Elymas  (from  alim)  in  the 
Arabic  or  Aramaic,  and  /mro-  in  the  Persian,  wise— wise, 
however,  in  the  Eastern  sense,  that  is,  given  to  learned  pur 
suits  and  the  skill  of  hidden  and  sacred  lore.     It  did  not  ne 
cessarily  denote  what  is  now  commonly  understood  by  the 
term,  magician  or  sorcerer;  but  comprehended  also  the  better 
wisdom  of  that  higher  learning,  which  was  cultivated  in  the 
East,  with  its  attendant  fancies  and  superstitions.    In  the  Gos 
pel  age,  however,  this  learning  had  become  so  much  connected 
with  astrology,  and  kindred  arts,  that  too  often— and  in  the 
case  particularly  of  the  Barjesus  mentioned  above— it  did  not 
materially  differ  from  what  is  denominated  magic  or  sorcery. 
The  persons  who  bore  the  name  of  Magi,  in  the  districts  oi 
Syria,  were  for  the  most  part  mere  fortune-tellers.     It  was 
such,  who  swarmed  about  Rome,  and  are  celebrated  in  the 
Latin  classics,  as  "Chaldean  astrologers,"  "Phrygian  fortune 
tellers,"  "dealers  in  Babylonian  numbers,"  etc.;1  rushing  in, 
k  i  Hor.  Sat.  I.  2,  1 ;  Od.  I.  11,  2.     Juv.  Sat.  III.  C. 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  277 

amid  the  decay  of  the  old  faith,  with  their  delusive  arts  of  di 
vination,  to  play  upon  the  credulity  of  an  age  alike  skeptical 
and  superstitious.  It  is  clear  from  the  allusions  of  the  an 
cient  satirists  and  historians,  that  those  pretenders  to  the  se 
crets  of  the  gods  and  the  knowledge  of  futurity  drove  a  very 
lucrative  trade,  and  had  the  ear  of  men,  as  well  as  women, 
high  in  rank,  and  by  no  means  deficient  in  intellect.  Marius 
is  reported  by  Plutarch  to  have  kept  a  Syrian  witch  or  pro 
phetess  in  his  camp,  and  to  have  been  much  guided  by  her 
divinations  in  regulating  his  military  and  political  movements. 
Tiberius  is  described  by  Juvenal  (x.  93,  sq.,)  sitting  on  the 
rock  in  Caprese,  " surrounded  by  a  flock  of  Chaldeans."  Even 
such  men  as  Pompey,  Crassus,  Cicsar,  appear  to  have  had 
frequent  dealings  with  them;  for  Cicero  speaks  of  having 
heard  from  each  of  them  many  things,  that  had  been  said  to 
them  by  the  Chaldeans,  and,  in  particular,  of  the  assurances 
they  had  received,  that  they  should  not  die,  excepting  in  a 
ripe  age,  at  home,  and  in  honour  (De  div.  ii.  47.)  Certainly, 
most  fallacious  predictions!  and  calculated,  as  Cicero  justly 
remarks,  to  destroy  all  confidence  in  such  prognostications! 
Yet  it  failed  to  do  so ;  for  men  must  have  something  to  repair 
to  for  support  and  comfort  in  the  hour  of  need;  if  destitute 
of  the  true,  they  inevitably  betake  to  the  false ;  and  infested 
as  Rome  was  with  the  elements  of  religious  darkness  and  moral 
evil,  the  soothsayers  were  a  class  that,  according  to  the  pro 
found  remark  of  Tacitus,  were  sure  to  be  always  shunned,  yet 
always  retained  (genus  hominum,  quod  in  civitate  nostra  et 
vitabitur  semper  et  retinebitur.) 

It  was,  then,  to  this  fraudulent  and  essentially  profligate 
class  of  persons,  that  Barjesus  belonged;  he  was  a  false  pro 
phet  of  that  low  and  reprobate  caste.  But  he  had  evidently 
acquired  a  certain  sway  over  the  mind  of  Sergius  Paulus,  much 
as  the  other  leading  men  of  the  age  yielded  themselves  to  the 
spell  of  a  like  delusive  influence.  It  may  well  seem  strange, 
that  there  should  have  been  found  Jews  addicting  themselves 
to  such  magical  arts  and  false  divinations,  considering  the  ex 
press  and  solemn  condemnation  of  such  things  in  the  law  of 
Moses.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  fact:  not  this  man 
24 


278  TERMS  EXPRESSIVE  OF 

alone,  but  vast  numbers  of  the  Jews  in  apostolic  times,  plied 
.sorcery  and  divination  as  a  regular  trade.  It  was  one  of  the 
clear  proofs  of  their  sunk  condition,  and  a  presage  of  approach 
ing  doom.  Jewish  females  are  represented  by  Juvenal  (Sat. 
vi.  542,)  as  emerging  from  their  lurking  places  in  the  woods, 
:md  for  the  smallest  pittance  whispering  into  the  ear  of  Ro 
man  matrons  some  revelation  of  Heaven's  secrets.  But  such 
were  only  the  lower  practisers  of  the  art.  There  were  others, 
like  Barjesus,  who  made  loftier  pretensions,  who  insinuated 
themselves  by  their  apparent  learning  and  divine  insight  into 
the  counsels  of  the  powerful;  and  their  number,  we  can  easily 
conceive,  as  well  as  the  disposition  to  give  heed  to  their  falla 
cious  arts,  would  acquire  considerable  accession  from  the  fame 
of  the  wonderful  deeds  performed  by  Christ  and  His  imme 
diate  followers  in  Judea.  The  manifestation  of  the  true,  in 
the  knowledge  of  Divine  mysteries  and  the  exercise  of  super 
natural  power,  with  the  mighty  fermentation  it  produced, 
created,  as  it  were,  a  new  field  for  the  display  of  the  false ; 
whence,  as  our  Lord  foretold,  many  false  prophets  arose,  de 
luding  the  ignorant,  and  even  seeking  to  press  into  the  Chris 
tian  fold.1 

The  apostle  John,  who  lived  to  the  close  of  the  first  cen 
tury,  testifies  that  many  such  prophets  had  already  appeared. 
In  ch.  iv.  1  of  his  first  Epistle,  he  says,  "Beloved,  believe  not 
every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits,  whether  they  are  of  God ;  be 
cause  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world"  (ore 
7:o)>Xol  (/)£'jdo7itoo(f7jTae  i£etyti>da0iv  s.ic  rbv  xoff/wv.)  He  does 
not  say,  that  they  had  found  their  way  into  the  Church,  but 
merely  that  they  had  made  their  appearance  in  the  world, 
and  were  there  making  such  pretensions  to  supernatural  in- 
hight,  that  believers  in  Christ,  as  well  as  others,  had  need  to 
Btand  on  their  guard  against  them.  They  might  partly  be  the 
subtle  and  audacious  diviners,  oC  whom  we  have  just  spoken, 
who  went  about  deceiving  the  simple  and  the  crafty  by  their 
vaunted  ability  to  explore  the  depths  of  futurity.  That  class 

1  It  is  well  known,  also,  that  the  last  struggles  and  convulsions  in  Judea 
were  accompanied  with  prophetical  delusions.  Josephus  speaks  of  "a  great 
i.umber  of  false  prophets"  playing  their  part,  and  notices  one  in  particular. 
(Wars,  VI.  5,  §2,  3.) 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  279 

may  certainly  be  included  in  the  description  of  the  apostle ; 
but  from  what  follows  in  the  Epistle,  it  is  clear,  that  he  more 
especially  points  to  the  false  teaching,  the  antichristian  forms 
of  error,  which  were  springing  up,  if  not  actually  within,  yet 
on  the  borders  of  the  Christian  Church.  For,  he  presently 
states,  that  the  spirits  are  not  of  God,  which  do  not  confess 
Christ  to  have  come  in  the  flesh;  and  "this,"  he  adds,  namely, 
the  denial  of  Jesus  as  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  "is  that  of 
the  antichrist,  of  which  ye  have  heard  that  it  comes,  and  even 
now  is  it  in  the  world."  This  apostle,  therefore,  virtually 
identifies  the  false  prophets  with  false  teachers,  and  both  with 
the  spirit  of  antichrist. 

It  may,  indeed,  be  affirmed  generally,  so  far  as  regards  the 
manifestation  of  error  in  reference  to  the  early  Christian 
Church,  that  the  (fisudodtodcrxaXot  were  scarcely  to  be  distin 
guished  from  the  (fsudo^^o^ra^  or  that  false  prophesying 
chiefly  assumed  the  form  of  false  teaching.  The  more  arrant 
impostors — the  astrologers  and  fortune-tellers — the  false  pro 
phets  in  that  sense,  were  rather  to  be  looked  for  beyond  the 
pale  of  the  Church;  as  they  could  only  be  found  in  persons, 
who  either  ignored  the  authority  of  Jesus,  or  set  up  their  own 
in  rivalry  to  His.  But  within  the  Church,  the  spirit  of  false 
hood  would  more  naturally  show  itself  in  assuming  the  name 
^of  Christ  to  teach  what  was  inconsistent  with  the  character 
and  tendency  of  His  Gospel.  It  is  evidently  of  such — rather 
^evoodtddaxa/M  than  (pBUoor^o^ro.c.  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
the  term — that  the  Apostle  Paul  speaks,  in  Acts  xx.  29,  30, 
as  sure  to  arise,  after  his  departure,  among  the  converts  at 
Ephesus — "grievous  wolves,"  as  he  calls  them,  "not  sparing 
the  flock;"  some  of  them  also  from  their  own  number,  "speak 
ing  perverse  things,  and  drawing  away  disciples  after  them." 
In  his  epistles,  also,  it  is  false  teaching,  chiefly,  with  which 
he  had  to  struggle,  and  in  regard  to  which  his  warnings  were 
more  particularly  uttered.  And  Peter,  in  his  second  Epistle, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  second  chapter,  draws  thus  the 
parallel  between  Old  and  New  Testament  times:  "But  there 
were  false  prophets  also  among  the  people  (i.e.  ancient  Israel,) 
even  as  there  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you;"  the  latter 
now,  as  the  former  then.  And  in  the  description  that  follows 


280  TERMS  EXPRESSIVE  OF 

of  the  kind  of  false  teachers  to  be  expected,  he  gives  as  their 
leading  characteristics  the  introduction  of  heretical  doctrines, 
tending  to  subvert  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
encouragement  by  pernicious  example  as  well  as  by  corrupt 
teaching,  of  licentious  and  ungodly  behaviour.  To  do  this 
•was,  no  doubt,  to  act  the  part  of  false  prophets,  since  it  was 
to  give  an  untrue  representation  of  the  mind  of  God,  and  to 
beget  fallacious  hopes  of  the  issue  of  His  dealings  with  men 
on  earth;  but,  as  it  did  not  necessarily  involve  any  formal 
predictions  of  the  future,  it  was  more  fitly  characterized  as 
false  teaching  than  false  prophesying,  while  the  place  its  apos 
tles  were  to  occupy  in  New  Testament  times  should  virtually 
correspond  to  that  of  the  false  prophets  in  the.  Old. 

In  general,  therefore,  we  may  say  in  respect  to  these  two 
terms,  that  while  the  false  prophets  were  also  false  teachers, 
and  the  two  were  sometimes  viewed  as  nearly  or  altogether 
identical,  the  first  term  usually  had  more  respect  to  the  pre 
tenders  to  prophetical  insight  outside  the  church,  the  other  to 
the  propagators  of  false  and  pernicious  doctrinal  views  within 
the  church.  The  same  persons  might,  and,  doubtless,  occa 
sionally  did  sustain  both  of  these  characters  at  once ;  yet  by 
no  means  always,  and  never  necessarily  so ;  since  there  might 
be  the  most  heterodox  doctrine  and  corrupt  behaviour  without 
any  attempt  at  divination;  and  in  certain  cases  the  art  of  di-^ 
vination  might  be  carried  on  as  a  traffic  by  itself. 

2.  We  proceed  now  to  the  two  other,  and  more  peculiar 
terms  of  this  class,  which  must  also,  in  great  measure,  be 
taken  conjointly.  In  regard  to  ipeudfypearot  there  can  be  little 
doubt;  it  can  only  indicate  false  pretenders  to  the  name  and 
character  of  Messiah.  Precisely  as  false  prophets  are  such 
as  laid  claim  to  gifts  that  did  not  belong  to  them,  by  false 
Christs  must  be  meant  those  who  assumed  to  be  what  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  alone  is.  In  the  strict  sense,  therefore,  false 
Christs  could  only  arise  outside  the  Christian  Church,  and 
among  those  who  had  rejected  the  true.  In  so  far  as  they 
did  arise,  there  was  in  their  appearance  the  fulfilment  of  an 
other  word  of  Jesus, — UI  am  come  in  My  Father's  name,  and 
ye  receive  Me  not;  if  another  shall  come  in  his  own  name, 
him  ye  will  receive,"  (John  v.  48.)  The  most  noted  example 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  281 

of  the  kind,  as  well  as  the  earliest,  was  that  furnished  by 
Barchochbas — Son  of  a  st^r,  as  he  chose  to  call  himself,  with 
reference  to  the  prophecy  of  Balaam,  which  he  would  have 
his  followers  to  believe  was  going  to  find  its  fulfilment  in  his 
victorious  struggles,  and  his  establishment  of  a  Jewish  domi 
nion.  False  expectations  of  a  similar  kind  have  often  been 
raised  among  the  Jewish  people,  and  reports  of  persons  an 
swering  to  them,  circulated;  but  they  have  never  reached  such 
a  height  as  they  did  in  the  pretensions  and  the  exploits  of 
Barchochbas. 

It  would  scarcely  be  right,  however,  to  limit  the  declaration 
of  our  Lord  respecting  false  Christs  to  such  Jewish  pretenders ; 
the  more  especially  as  the  place  where  He  made  it  was  in  a 
discourse  addressed  to  His  own  disciples;  and  for  them  the 
danger  was  comparatively  little  of  being  misled  by  such  ma 
nifestly  wandering  stars.  There  was  a  danger  in  that  direc 
tion,. near  the  beginning  of  the  New  Testament  Church,  for 
persons,  whose  leanings  might  be  on  the  side  of  Christianity, 
but  who  were  very  imperfectly  enlightened  in  their  views,  and 
strong  in  their  national  predilections.  Such  persons  might, 
amid  the  tumults  and  disorders,  the  false  hopes  and  ferment 
ing  excitement,  which  preceded  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish 
State,  have  for  a  time  caught  the  infection  of  the  evil  that 
was  at  work,  and  even,  in  some  instances,  have  precipitated 
themselves  into  the  general  delusions.  But  such  cases  would 
certainly  be  rare ;  and  we  cannot  suppose  that  our  Lord  looked 
no  farther  than  that;  we  are  rather  to  conceive,  in  accordance 
with  the  whole  structure  of  His  discourse,  that  He  wished 
them  to  regard  what  was  then  to  take  place  but  as  the  begin 
ning  of  the  end — a  beginning  that  should  be  often  in  substance, 
though  under  different  forms,  repeating  itself  in  the  future. 
It  matters  little  whether  persons  call  themselves  by  the  name 
of  Christ,  or  avowedly  set  up  a  rival  claim  to  men's  homage 
and  regard,  if  they  assume  to  do  what,  as  Christ,  He  alone 
has  the  right  or  the  power  to  perform ;  for  in  that  case  they 
become  in  reality,  if  not  in  name,  false  Christs.  Should  any 
one  undertake  to  give  a  revelation  of  Divine  things,  higher 
than  and  contrary  to  Christ's;  to  lay  open  another  way  to  the 

24* 


282  TERMS  EXPRESSIVE  OF 

favour  and  blessing  of  Heaven,  than  that  which  has  been  con 
secrated  by  His  blood ;  or  to  conduct  the  world  to  its  destined 
state  of  perfection  and  glory,  otherwise  than  through  the  ac 
knowledgment  of  His  name  and  the  obedience  of  His  gospel; 
such  a  one  would  be  as  really  acting  the  part  of  a  false  Christ, 
as  if  he  openly  challenged  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  or  expli 
citly  claimed  the  title  to  himself.  There  is,  therefore,  a  foun 
dation  of  truth  in  the  statement  of  Hegesippug,  in  which,  after 
mentioning  the  Menandrians,  Marcionites,  Carpocratians,  and 
other  Gnostic  sects,  he  says,  that  "  from  these  spring  false 
Christs,  false  prophets,  false  apostles,  the  persons  who,  by 
their  corrupt  doctrines  against  God  and  against  His  church, 
broke  up  the  unity  of  the  church,"  (Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.,  iv.  22;) 
although  they  could  hardly  be  said  to  bring  division  into  a 
body,  to  which  they  did  not  themselves  strictly  belong.  The 
tendency  of  the  doctrines,  however,  propounded  by  those  ad 
vocates  of  heresy  and  corruption,  undoubtedly  was  to  supplant 
or  supersede  Christ,  and  the  spiritual  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 
While  paying  a  certain  deference  and  respect  to  the  name  of 
Jesus,  their  teaching  in  reality  breathed  another  spirit,  and 
drew  in  another  direction  than  that  of  Christ.  And  the  same, 
of  course,  may  be  said  of  many  authors  and  systems  of  later 
times, — of  all,  indeed,  in  every  age,  that  have  maintained,  or 
rested  in  the  sufficiency  of  nature  to  win  for  itself  a  position 
of  safety  before  God,  or  to  acquire  a  place  of  honour  in  His 
kingdom.  These,  in  reality,  disown  the  name  of  Jesus,  and 
set  themselves  up  in  His  room  as  the  guides  and  saviours  of 
the  world.  And  we  cannot  fail  to  perceive  an  indication  of 
the  varied  forms  such  characters  were  to  assume,  and  the 
many  different  quarters  whence  they  might  be  expected  to  ap 
pear,  in  the  warning  of  our  Lord  respecting  them: — "  If  they 
shall  say  unto  you,  Behold  he  is  in  the  desert,  go  not  forth; 
behold  ho  is  in  the  secret  chambers,  believe  it  not." 

But  in  what  relation,  it  is  proper  to  ask,  does  fieud6%loeffroc 
stand  to  the  dvri%pt0TQ<?1  Is  this  last  but  another  name  for 
the  same  idea  of  assumption,  in  some  form  or  another,  of 
Christ's  peculiar  office  and  work?  Or,  does  it  denote  contra 
riety  and  opposition  of  a  different  kind?  The  word  dvTt%pt<t+ 
roc  was  not  used  by  our  Lord  Himself;  nor  does  it  occur  in 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  283 

any  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  except  those  of  the 
apostle  John.  There  are  descriptions  which  virtually  indicate 
what  the  word,  as  used  by  him,  imports;  but  the  word  itself 
is  found  only  in  his  writings;  and  there  it  occurs  altogether 
four  times — thrice  in  the  singular,  and  once  in  the  plural.  Be 
fore  looking  at  these,  let  us  first  endeavour  to  determine  the 
force  of  the  preposition  fort  in  the  word.  There  are  ^some 
who  hold  that  it  necessarily  denotes  contrariety  or  opposition 
to,  and  others  who  with  equal  tenacity  contend  for  the  sense 
of  substitution,  in  the  room  of:  If  the  former  were  the  proper 
view,  the  antichrist  would  necessarily  be  the  enemy  of  Christ; 
but  if  the  latter,  it  would  be  His  false  representative  or  sup- 
planter.  The  original  meaning  of  the  preposition  is  over 
against,  and  all  its  uses,  whether  alone  or  in  composition,  may 
be  traced  without  difficulty  to  this  primary  idea,  and  express 
but  different  shades  of  the  relation  it  involves.  What  is  over 
against  may  be  so  in  one  of  three  different  respects:  in  the 
way  (1.)  of  direct  antithesis  and  opposition ;  or  (2.)  of  substitu 
tion,  as  when  one  takes  the  place  which  belongs  to  another; 
or  (3.)  of  correspondence,  when  one  thing  or  person  answers 
to  another — an  image  or  counterpart.  This  last  aspect  of  the 
relation,  involved  in  the  dvr/,  cannot,  of  course,  come  into 
consideration  here.  But  it  is  not  unknown  in  New  Testament 
Scripture,  either  as  regards  the  simple  or  the  compound  use 
of  the  preposition.  Thus,  at  John  i.  16,  "  Of  His  fulness  we 
all  have  received,  and  grace  for  grace" — %&['&  u-^  y&pt~QZ — 
i.  e.,  grace  corresponding  to  grace — grace  in  the  believer  be 
coming  the  counterpart  of  Christ's — line  for  line,  feature  for 
feature.  So  also  in  composition,  when  occurring  in  such  words 
as  dvTax68offect  a  giving  back  in  return,  a  recompense ;  or  av- 
Ttrj-oz,  the  correspondence  to  the  TU~QZ. 

This,  however,  is  the  less  common  form  of  the  relation  de 
noted  by  the  avr/;  and  of  the  other  two,  we  find  instances  of 
both  in  Scripture.  In  such  words  as  dyrc/of/a,  d^Tcdsffe^ 
eUCTxec/tevoc,  the  relation  of  formal  opposition  is  denoted;  as 
it  is  also  in  dvzYVO/zro,  contrariety  to  law,  dvr/otffOT,  an  adver 
sary  in.  a  suit,  dvrfyeep,  what  is  over  against  the  hand,  the 
thumb.  But  there  is  another  class  of  words,  in  which  the  idea 


284  TERMS  EXPRESSIVE  OF 

of  substitution,  or  contradistinction,  in  the  form  of  taking  the 
place  of  another,  whether  by  deputy  or  as  a  rival,  is  also  in 
dicated;  for  example,  ctvtfyrraror,  the  substitute  of  the  consul, 
pro-consul ;  dvrr/3«<T^sr>c,  pro-rex,  or  viceroy ;  avrttuTpov,  sub 
stitute  or  equivalent  for  a  forfeit,  ransom.  It  is  plain,  there 
fore,  that  the  single  term  dvTfyptffroz  cannot  of  itself  deter 
mine  the  precise  meaning.  So  far  as  the  current  use  of  the 
preposition  is  concerned,  it  may  point  either  to  contrariety  or 
to  substitution  ;  the  antichrist  may  be,  indiiferently,  what  sets 
itself  in  opposition  to  Christ,  or  what  thrusts  itself  into  His 
room — a  faud6%ptffTOC — and  it  is  only  by  the  connexion  in 
which  the  word  is  used,  and  the  comparison  of  the  paraUel 
passages,  that  we  can  determine  which  may  be  the  predominant 
or  exclusive  idea. 

In  the  first  passage  where  the  word  occurs,  1  John  ii.  18, 
the  literal  rendering  of  which  is,  "Little  children,  it  is  the  last 
hour  (or  season;)  and  as  ye  heard,  that  the  antichrist  cometh, 
even  now  many  have  become  antichrists  (d.VTi%pt0TOt  KO//OI 
"fzfbvaaw^  whence  we  know  it  is  the  last  hour."  Here,  there 
is  no  precise  definition  of  what  forms  of  evil  are  included  in 
the  antichrist;  there  is  merely  the  assumption  of  a  fact,  that 
the  idea  expressed  by  the  term  had  already  passed  into  a 
reality,  and  that  in  a  variety  of  persons.  This,  however,  is 
itself  of  considerable  moment,  especially  as  it  conveys  the  in 
formation,  that  while  the  name  is  used  in  the  singular,  as  of 
an  individual,  it  was  not  intended  to  denote  the  same  kind  of 
strict  and  exclusive  personality  as  the  Christ.  Even  in  the 
apostolic  age,  John  finds  the  name  of  antichrist  applicable  to 
many  individuals.  And  this,  also,  may  so  far  help  us  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  idea,  since,  while  there  were  numbers  in  that 
age  who  sought  within  the  Church  to  corrupt  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  and  without  it  to  disown  and  resist  His  authority,  we 
have  yet  no  reason  to  suppose,  that  there  were  more  than  a 
very  few,  who  distinctly  claimed  the  title  of  Christ,  and  pre 
sumed  to  place  themselves  in  Messiah's  room.  The  next  pas 
sage  occurs  very  shortly  after  the  one  just  noticed,  and  may 
be  regarded  as  supplementary  to  it;  it  is  in  the  22d  verse. 
The  apostle  had  stated,  that  no  lie  is  of  the  truth;  and  he 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  285 

then  continues,  "AVho  is  the  liar  (o  </>stW^c,  the  liar  by  pre 
eminence,)  but  he  who  denieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ?  This 
is  the  antichrist,  who  denieth  (or,  denying)  the  Father  and 
the  Son."  Here  it  is  the  denial  of  the  truth  concerning  Christ, 
not  the  formal  supplanting  of  Christ  by  an  impious  usurpation 
of  His  office,  to  which  the  name  of  antichrist  is  applied.  Yet 
it  could  not  be  intended  to  denote  every  sort  of  denial  of  the 
truth ;  for  this  would  have  been  to  identify  antichristianism 
with  Jewish  infidelity  or  with  heathenism,  which  certainly  was 
not  the  object  of  the  apostle.  The  denial  of  the  truth  by  the 
antichriat  was  denial  after  a  peculiar  manner,  not  as  from  a 
directly  hostile  and  antagonistic  position,  but  under  the  cover 
of  a  Christian  name,  and  with  more  or  less  of  a  friendly  as 
pect.  While  it  was  denied  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  term,  Jesus  was  by  no  means  reckoned  an 
impostor;  His  name  was  still  assumed,  and  his  place  held  to 
be  one  of  distinguished  honour.  That  this  was  the  case  is  evi 
dent,  not  only  from  the  distinctive  name  applied  to  the  form 
of  evil  in  question,  but  also  from  what  is  said  in  ver.  18,  19, 
of  the  origination  of  the  antichrists.  "Many,"  says  the  apos 
tle,  "have  become  antichrists;"  they  were  not  so  originally, 
but  by  a  downward  progress  had  ended  in  becoming  such. 
And  again,  "They  went  out  from  us,  but  were  not  of  us;" 
that  is,  they  had  belonged  to  the  Christian  community,  but 
showed,  by  the  course  of  defection  they  now  pursued,  that 
they  had  not  formed  a  part  of  its  living  membership,  nor  had 
really  imbibed  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  When,  therefore, 
the  apostle  says,  in  the  verse  already  quoted,  that  those  whom 
he  designated  antichrists  denied  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ;  and 
when,  in  another  verse,  he  says,  "Every  spirit  that  confesseth 
not  Jesus  Christ  as  having  come  (itytodbc<£)  in  the  flesh,  is 
not  of  God;  and  this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist  whereof  ye 
have  heard,  that  it  cometh,  and  is  even  now  in  the  world" 
(ch.  iv.  3;)  and,  still  again,  when  he  says,  "For  many  de 
ceivers  have  entered  into  the  world,  who  confess  not  Jesus 
Christ  having  come  in  flesh  (Ipftopevov  ev  aapxi\)  this  is  the 
deceiver  and  the  antichrist"  ("2  John  v.  7.)  In  all  these  pas 
sages,  it  can  only  be  of  a  virtual  denial  of  the  truth,  that  the 


286  TERMS  EXPRESSIVE  OF 

apostle  speaks.  He  plainly  means  such  a  depravation  of  the 
true  doctrine,  or  abstraction  of  its  essential  elements,  as  turned 
it  into  a  lie.  And  when,  further,  he  represents  the  falsehood 
as  circling  around  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  disowning  Him  as 
having  come  in  the  flesj),  we  can  scarcely  entertain  a  doubt, 
that  he  refers  to  certain  forms  of  the  great  Gnostic  heresy — 
to  such,  as  held,  indeed,  by  the  name  of  Jesus,  but  conceived 
of  Him  as  only  some  kind  of  shadowy  emanation  of  the  Divine 
virtue,  not  a  personal  incarnation  of  the  Eternal  Word.  Only 
by  taking  up  a  position,  and  announcing  a  doctrine  of  this 
sort,  could  the  persons  referred  to  have  proved  peculiarly 
dangerous  to  the  Church — so  dangerous,  as  to  deserve  being 
called,  collectively  and  emphatically,  the  Deceiver,  the  em 
bodiment,  in  a  manner,  of  the  old  serpent.  In  an  avowed  re 
sistance  to  the  claims  of  Jesus,  or  a  total  apostacy  from  the 
faith  of  His  Gospel,  there  should  necessarily  have  been  little 
room  for  the  arts  of  deception,  and  no  very  pressing  danger 
to  the  true  members  of  the  Church. 

We  arrive,  then,  at  the  conclusion,  that  in  St.  John's  use 
of  the  term  antichrist,  there  is  an  unmistakable  reference  to 
the  early  heretics,  as  forming  at  least  one  exemplification  of 
its  idea.  Such,  also,  was  the  impression  derived  from  the 
apostle's  statements  by  many  of  the  Fathers ;  they  understood 
him  to  speak  of  the  heretics  of  the  time,  under  the  antichrists 
who  had  already  appeared.  For  example,  Cyprian,  when 
writing  of  heretics,  Ep.  Ixxiii.  13,  and  referring  to  1  John 
iv.  3,  asks,  "How  can  they  do  spiritual  and  divine  things  who 
are  enemies  to  God,  and  whose  breast  the  spirit  of  antichrist 
has  possessed?"  On  the  same  passage  (Ecumenius  says, 
"He  declares  antichrist  to  be  already  in  the  world,  not  cor 
poreally,  but  by  means  of  those  who  prepare  the  way  for  his 
coming;  of  which  sort  are  false  apostles,  false  prophets,  and 
heretics."  So,  too,  Damascenus,  L.  iv.  orth.  fid.  27,  "Every 
one  who  does  not  confess  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  God  has 
come  in  the  flesh,  and  is  perfect  God,  and  was  made  perfect 
man,  still  remaining  God,  is  antichrist."  And  Augustine,  in 
the  third  Tractatus  on  1  John,  speaking  to  the  question, 
"Whom  did  the  apostle  call  antichrist?  extends  the  term,  in- 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  287 

deed,  so  as  to  make  it  comprehend  every  one  who  is  contrary 
to  Christ,  and  is  not  a  true  member  of  His  body,  but  places 
in  the  first  rank,  as  being  the  characters  most  directly  meant, 
"all  heretics  and  schismatics."  It  is  manifest,  indeed,  that 
the  existing  antichrists  of  John,  the  abettors  and  exponents 
of  the  lie,  or  deniers,  under  a  Christian  name,  of  what  was 
emphatically  the  truth,  belonged  to  the  very  same  class  with 
the  grievous  wolves  and  false  brethren  of  St.  Paul,  of  whom 
he  so  solemnly  forewarned  the  Ephesian  elders,  and  of  whom 
he  also  wrote  in  his  epistles  to  Timothy  (1  Tim.  iv.  1 ;  2  Tim. 
iii.  1,)  as  persons  who  should  depart  from  the  faith,  teach 
many  heretical  doctrines,  and  bring  in  perilous  times  upon 
the  Church.  St.  John,  writing  at  a  later  period,  and  referring 
to  what  then  existed,  calls  attention  to  the  development  of 
that  spirit,  of  which  Paul  perceived  the  germ,  and  described 
beforehand  the  future  growth.  The  one  announced  the  evil 
as  coming,xthe  other  declared  it  had  already  come;  and  with 
reference,  no  doubt,  to  the  prophetic  utterances  of  Paul,  re 
minded  believers  of  their  having  previously  heard  that  it  was 
to  come.  So  that  the  antic?irists  of  John  are  found  to  coin 
cide  with  one  aspect  of  our  Lord's  false  Christs;  they  were 
those  who,  without  renouncing  the  name  of  Christians,  or 
without  any  open  disparagement  of  Jesus,  forsook  the  simpli 
city  of  the  faith  in  Him,  and  turned  His  truth  into  a  lie. 
They  might,  so  far  also  be  said  to  supplant  Him,  as  to  follow 
tJiem  was  to  desert  Christ;  yet,  from  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  there  could  be  no  direct  antagonism  to  Jesus,  or  distinct 
unfurling  of  the  banner  of  revolt. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  concur  in  the  statement  of  Dean 
Trench  (New  Testament  Synonyms,  p.  120,)  that  t(  resistance 
to,  arid  defiance  of,  Christ,  is  the  essential  mark  of  anti 
christ."  Defiance  of  Christ  betokens  avowed  and  uncom 
promising  opposition,  which  was  the  part,  not  of  deceivers, 
who  had  corrupted,  the  truth  by  some  specious  lie  of  their 
own,  but  of  undisguised  enemies.  We  concur,  however,  in 
the  other  part  of  his  statement,  that,  according  to  St.  John's 
representation  of  the  antichrist,  there  was  not  the  false  as 
sumption  of  Christ's  character  and  offices — no  further,  at 


288  TERMS  EXPRESSIVE  OF 

least,  than  in  the  modified  sense  already  explained,  of  com 
mitting  one's  self  to  a  kind  of  teaching,  which  was  virtually 
subversive  of  the  truth  and  authority  of  Christ. 

It  is  still,  however,  a  question,  whether  we  are  to  regard 
the  Scriptural  idea  of  the  antichrist  as  exhausted  in  those 
heretical  corrupters  of  the  Gospel  in  the  apostolic  age,  and 
their  successors  in  apostolic  times;  or  should  rather  view 
them  as  the  types  and  forerunners  of  some  huge  system  of 
God-opposing  error,  or  of  some  grand  personification  of  im 
piety  arid  wickedness,  to  be  exhibited  before  the  appearing  of 
Christ?  It  was  thought,  from  comparatively  early  times, 
that  the  mention  so  emphatically  of  the  antichrist  bespoke 
something  of  a  more  concentrated  and  personally  antagonistic 
character  than  the  many  antichrists  which  were  spoken  of  as 
being  already  in  the  world.  These,  it  was  conceived,  were  but 
preliminary  exemplifications  of  some  far  greater  embodiment 
of  the  antichristian  spirit,  some  monarch,  probably  (like  An- 
tiochus  of  old)  of  heaven-daring  impiety,  and  unscrupulous 
disregard  of  every  thing  sacred  and  divine,  who,  after  pur 
suing  a  course  of  appalling  wickedness  and  violence,  should 
be  destroyed  by  the  personal  manifestation  of  Christ  in  glory. 
This  view,  however,  was  founded,  not  simply,  nor  even  chiefly, 
upon  the  passages  above  referred  to  in  the  Epistles  of  John, 
but  on  the  representation  of  St.  Paul,  in  2  Thess.  ii.  3-10, 
(taken  in  connexion  with  certain  portions  of  the  Apocalypse.) 
Amid  many  crude  speculations  and  conflicting  views  on  this 
passage,  none  of  the  Fathers  appear  to  have  doubted,  as 
Augustine  expressly  states,  (De  Civ.  Dei,  xx.  19,)  that  it  re 
ferred  to  antichrist,  under  the  names,  "Man  of  Sin,"  and 
44  Son  of  Perdition."  And,  beyond  all  question,  the  evil 
portrayed  here  is  essentially  of  the  same  character  as  that 
spoken  of  in  the  passages  already  considered,  only  with  the 
characteristic  traits  more  darkly  drawn,  and  the  whole  mystery 
of  iniquity  more  fully  exhibited.  As  in  the  other  passages, 
the  antichristian  spirit  was  identified  with  a  departing  from 
the  faith,  and  a  corrupting  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel;  so 
here  the  coming  evil  is  designated  emphatically  the  apostacy — 
jj  d.7ioGTaaia — by  which  we  can  think  only  of  a  notable  falling 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  289 

away  from  the  faith  and  purity  of  the  Gospel ;  so  that  the 
evil  was  to  have  both  its  root  and  its  development  in  connex 
ion  with  the  Church's  degeneracy.  Nor  was  the  commence 
ment  of  the  evil  in  this  case,  any  more  than  the  other,  to  be 
far  distant.  Even  at  the  comparatively  early  period  when 
the  apostle  wrote,  it  had  begun  to  work;  and  in  his  ordinary 
ministrations  he  had,  as  he  reminds  his  disciples,  (v.  5,  7,) 
forewarned  them  concerning  it;  plainly  implying,  that  it  was 
to  have  its  rise  in  a  spiritual  and  growing  defection  within  the 
Christian  Church.  Then,  as  the  term  antichrist  evidently 
denoted,  some  kind  of  antithesis  in  doctrine  and  practice 
to  Christ — a  certain  use  of  Christ's  name,  with  a  spirit  and 
design  utterly  opposed  to  Christ's  cause — so,  in  the  passage 
under  consideration,  the  power  personified  and  described  is 
designated  the  opposer,  b  dv-exslfjtsvoz — one  who  sets  himself 
against  God,  and  arrogates  the  highest  prerogatives  and  ho 
nours.  Yet,  with  such  impious  self-deification  in  fact,  there 
was  to  be  nothing  like  an  open  defiance  and  contempt  of  all 
religious  propriety  in  form;  for  this  same  power  is  repre 
sented  as  developing  itself  by  a  "mystery  of  iniquity;"  i.  e., 
by  such  a  complex  and  subtle  operation  of  the  worst  princi 
ples  and  designs,  as  might  be  carried  on  under  the  fairest  and 
most  hypocritical  pretences;  and  by  "signs  and  lying  won 
ders,  and  all  deceivableness  of  unrighteousness,"  beguiling 
those  who  should  fall  under  its  influence,  to  become  the  vie- 
tims  of  "a  strong  delusion,"  and  to  "believe  a  lie," — viz.,  to 
believe  that  which  should,  to  their  view,  have  the  semblance 
of  the  truth,  but  in  reality  should  be  at  complete  variance 
with  it.  Not  only  so,  but  the  Temple  of  God  is  represented 
as  the  chosen  theatre  of  this  impious,  artful  and  wicked 
ascendency,  (ver.  4;)  and  in  respect  to  Christian  times,  the 
Apostle  Paul  knows  of  no  temple  but  the  Church  itself.  Nor 
can  any  other  be  understood  here.  It  is  the  only  kind  of 
temple-usurpation  which  can  now  be  conceived  of  as  affecting 
the  expectations  and  interests  of  the  Church  generally;  and 
that  alone,  also,  which  might  justly  be  represented  as  a  grand 
consummation  of  the  workings  of  iniquity  within  the  Chris 
tian  community.  So  that,  as  a  whole,  the  description  of  the 
25 


290  TERMS  EXPRESSIVE  OP 

apostle  presents  to  our  view  some  sort  of  mysterious  and 
astounding  combination  of  good  and  evil,  formally  differing 
from  either  heathenism  or  infidelity — a  gathering  up  and  as 
sorting  together  of  certain  elements  in  Christianity,  for  the 
purpose  of  accomplishing,  by  the  most  subtle  devices  and 
cunning  stratagems,  the  overthrow  and  subversion  of  Chris 
tian  truth  and  life.  It  is,  therefore,  but  the  full  growth  and 
final  development  of  St.  John's  idea  of  the  antichrist. 

Of  the  descriptions  generally  of  the  comin^evil  in  New 
Testament  Scripture,  and  especially  of  this  fuller  description 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  nothing  (it  appears  to  me) 
can  be  more  certain  on  exegetical  grounds,  than  that  they 
cannot  be  made  to  harmonize  with  the  Romish  opinion — which 
Hengstenberg  and  a  few  others  in  the  Protestant  Church  have 
been  attempting  to  revive — the  opinion  that  would  find  the 
evil  spoken  of  realized  in  the  power  and  influence  exerted  in 
early  times  by  Rome,  in  its  heathen  state,  against  the  cause 
and  Church  of  Christ.  In  such  an  application  of  what  is 
written,  we  have  only  some  general  coincidences,  while  we 
miss  all  the  more  distinctive  features  of  the  delineation.  If 
it  might  be  said  of  the  heathen  power  in  those  times,  that  it 
did  attempt  to  press  into  the  temple  or  Church  of  God,  and 
usurp  religious  homage  there,  the  attempt,  as  is  well  known, 
was  successfully  repelled ;  and  it  never  properly  assumed  the 
appearance  of  an  actual  sitting,  or  enthroning  one's  self  there 
(as  the  words  import,)  for  the  purpose  of  displacing  the  true 
God  and  Saviour  from  their  rightful  supremacy.  Nor,  in  the 
operations  of  that  power,  do  we  perceive  any  thing  that  could 
fitly  be  designated  "a  mystery  of  iniquity" — the  iniquity 
practised  being  that  rather  of  palpable  opposition  and  over 
bearing  violence — in  its  aim  transparent  to  every  one,  who 
knew  the  Gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  involving,  if  yielded 
to,  the  conscious  renunciation  of  Christ.  As  to  the  signs  and 
lying  wonders,  and  deceivableness  of  unrighteousness,  and 
strong  delusions,  which  the  apostle  mentions  among  the  means 
and  characteristic  indications  of  the  dreaded  power,  there  is 
scarcely  even  the  shadow  of  them  to  be  found  in  the  contro 
versy  which  ancient  heathenism  waged  with  Christianity.  On 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  291 

every  account,  therefore,  this  view  is  to  be  rejected  as  want 
ing  in  the  more  essential  points  of  correspondence  between 
the  apostolic  description  and  the  supposed  realization  in  Pro 
vidence. 

Another  view,  however,  has  of  late  been  rising  into  notice, 
which,  if  well  founded,  would  equally  save  the  Romish  apos- 
tacy  from  any  proper  share  in  the  predicted  evil ;  and  which, 
we  cannot  but  fear,  if  not  originated,  has  a*  least  been  some 
what  encouraged  and  fostered  by  that  softened  apologetic  hue, 
which  the  mediaeval  and  antiquarian  tendencies  of  the  present 
age  have  served  to  throw  around  Romanism.  The  view  we 
refer  to  would  make  the  full  and  proper  development  of  the 
antichrist  an  essentially  different  thing  from  any  such  depra 
vation  of  the  truth,  as  is  to  be  found  in  the  Papacy — a  greatly 
more  blasphemous  usurpation,  and  one  that  can  only  be  reached 
by  a  Pantheistic  deification  of  human  nature.  So  Olshausen, 
who,  on  the  passage  in  Thessalonians,  thus  writes,  "The  self- 
deification  of  the  Roman  emperors  appears  as  modesty  by 
the  side  of  that  of  antichrist;  for  the  Caesars  did  not  ele 
vate  themselves  above  the  other  gods,  they  only  wanted  to 
have  a  place  beside  them,  as  representatives  of  the  genius  of 
the  Roman  people.  Antichrist,  on  the  contrary,  wants  to  be 
the  only  true  God,  who  suffers  none  beside  him ;  what  Christ 
demands  for  Himself  in  .truth,  he,  in  the  excess  of  his  pre 
sumption,  claims  for  himself  in  falsehood."  Then,  as  to  the 
way  in  which  he  should  do  this,  it  is  said,  "Antichrist  will 
not,  as  Chrysostom  correctly  remarks,  promote  idolatry,  but 
seduce  men  from  the  true  God,  as  also  from  idols,  and  set  him 
self  up  as  the  only  object  of  adoration.  This  remarkable  idea, 
that  sin  in  antichrist  issues  in  a  downright  self-deification,  dis 
closes  to  us  the  inmost  nature  of  evil,  which  consists  in  sel 
fishness.  In  antichrist  all  love,  all  capability  of  sacrifice  and 
self-denial,  shows  itself  entirely  submerged  in  the  making  of 
the  I  all  and  all,  which  then  also  insists  on  being  acknow 
ledged  by  all  men,  as  the  centre  of  all  power,  wisdom,  and 
glory."  The  proper  antichrist,  therefore,  according  to  Ol 
shausen,  must  be  a  person,  and  one  who  shall  be  himself  the 
mystery  of  iniquity,  as  Christ  is  the  mystery  of  godliness — a 


292  TERMS  EXPRESSIVE  OF 

kind  of  embodiment  or  incarnation  of  Satan.  He  can  regard 
all  the  past  manifestations  and  workings  of  evil,  only  as  serving 
to  indicate  what  it  may  possibly  be,  but  by  no  means  as  rea 
lizing  the  idea;  and  he  conceives,  it  may  one  day  start  forth 
in  the  person  of  one,  who  shall  combine  in  his  character  the 
elements  of  infidelity  and  superstition,  which  are  so  visibly 
striving  for  the  mastery  over  mankind.  Some  individual  may 
be  cast  up  by  the  fermentation  that  is  going  forward,  who 
shall  concentrate  around  himself  all  the  Satanic  tendencies  in 
their  greatest  power  and  energy,  and  come  forth  at  last  in 
impious  rivalry  of  Christ,  as  the  incarnate  son  of  the  devil. 
Dean  Trench  seems  substantially  to  adopt  this  view,  though 
he  expresses  himself  more  briefly,  and  also  less  explicitly,  upon 
the  subject.  With  him,  the  antichrist  is  "one  who  shall  not 
pay  so  much  homage  to  God's  word  as  to  assert  the  fulfilment 
in  himself,  for  he  shall  deny  that  word  altogether;  hating  even 
erroneous  worship,  because  it  is  worship  at  all;  hating  much 
more  the  Church's  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth;  who,  on  the 
destruction  of  every  religion,  every  acknowledgment  that  man 
is  submitted  to  higher  powers  than  his  own,  shall  seek  to 
establish  his  throne;  and  for  God's  great  truth,  'God  is  man,' 
to  substitute  his  own  lie,  'man  is  God.'"  (Synonyms,  p.  120.) 
It  may  be  admitted,  with  reference  to  this  view,  that  there 
are  tendencies  in  operation  at  the  present  time,  fitted,  in  some 
degree  to  suggest  the  thought  of  such  a  possible  incarnation 
of  the  ungodly  and  atheistic  principle;  but  nothing  has  yet 
occurred,  which  can  justly  be  said  to  have  brought  it  within 
the  bounds  of  the  probable.  At  all  events  it  is  an  aspect  of 
the  matter  derived  greatly  more  from  the  apprehended  results 
of  those  tendencies  themselves,  than  from  a  simple  and  un 
biassed  interpretation  of  the  passages  of  Scripture,  in  which 
the  antichrist  is  described  or  named.  Such  an  antichrist  as 
those  authors  delineate,  the  impersonation  of  unblushing  wicked 
ness  and  atheism,  has  everything  against  it,  which  has  been 
already  urged  against  the  view,  that  would  identify  the  de 
scription  with  the  enmity  and  persecutions  of  heathen  Rome. 
Instead  of  seating  itself  in  the  temple  of  the  Christian  Church 
as  its  own,  and  arrogating  there  the  supreme  place,  an  anti- 


ANTAGONISTIC  RELATIONS  TO  CHRIST.  298 

Christian  power  of  that  sort  could  only  rise  on  the  ruins  of  the 
temple.  And  whatever  audacity  or  foolhardiness  there  might 
be  in  the  assumptions  and  proceedings  of  such  a  power,  one 
cannot,  by  any  stretch  of  imagination,  conceive  how,  with  such 
flagrant  impiety  in  its  front,  it  could  present  to  God's  people 
the  appearance  of  a  mystery  of  iniquity,  and  be  accompanied 
with  signs  and  wonders  and  deceitful  workings,  destined  to 
prevail  over  all  who  had  not  received  the  truth  in  the  love  of 
it.  Conscience  and  the  Bible  must  cease  to  be  what  they  now 
are,  cease  at  least  to  possess  the  mutual  force  and  respond- 
ency  they  have  been  wont  to  exercise,  ere  so  godless  a  power 
could  rise  to  the  ascendant  in  Christendom.  It  may  even  be 
said,  the  religious  susceptibilities  of  men,  in  the  false  direc 
tion  as  well  as  the  true,  would  need  to  have  sustained  a  para 
lysis  alike  unprecedented  and  incredible.  And,  besides,  the 
historical  connexion  would  be  broken  which  the  passages,  bear 
ing  on  the  antichristian  apostacy,  plainly  establish  between 
the  present  and  the  future.  In  what  already  existed  the 
apostles  descried  the  germ,  the  incipient  workings  of  what 
was  hereafter  more  fully  to  develop  itself;  while  the  anti 
christ  now  suggested  to  our  apprehension,  if  it  should  ever  at 
tain  to  a  substantive  existence,  would  stand  in  no  proper  affi 
nity  to  the  false  doctrine  and  corruptions  of  the  apostolic  age. 
It  would  be  a  strictly  novel  phenomenon. 

It  were  out  of  place,  however,  to  prosecute  the  subject  fur 
ther  here,  where  exegetical  investigations  are  what  chiefly  de 
mand  attention.  For  those  who  wish  to  see  the  subject  viewed 
more  in  its  doctrinal  and  historical  aspects,  I  must  refer  them 
to  Prophecy,  Viewed  in  Respect  to  its  Distinctive  Features, 
etc.,  p.  359,  sq.,  from  which  some  of  the  last  preceding  pages 
have  been  mainly  taken.  It  will  be  enough  here  to  state  my 
conviction  which  may  be  readily  inferred  from  the  preceding 
remarks,  that  the  conditions  of  the  Scriptural  problem  respect 
ing  the  antichrist,  have  met  their  fullest,  and  incomparably 
most  systematic  and  general  fulfilment  in  the  corruptions  of 
Popery.  And,  in  as  far  as  any  other  forms  of  evil,  either 
now  existing,  or  yet  to  arise,  may  be  comprehended  under  the 
same  designation,  it  can  only  be  because  they  shall  contain  a 

25* 


294  "  THE  USE  OF 

substantially  similar  disfiguration  of  the  truth,  and  undue  ex 
altation  of  the  creature  into  the  place  and  prerogatives  of 
Godhead. 


SECTION  FIFTH. 


ON     aTTTi^CO  AND  ITS  COGNATES,  WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO 
THE  MODE  OF  ADMINISTERING  BAPTISM. 

IT  is  a  somewhat  striking  circumstance,  that  when  our  Lord's 
forerunner  came  forth  to  prepare  the  way  for  His  Master,  he 
is  represented  as  not  only  preaching  the  doctrine,  but  also  as 
administering  the  baptism  of  repentance;  while  still  a  pro 
found  silence  is  observed  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  admi 
nistered  the  ordinance  to  his  disciples.  St.  Luke  in  his  first 
notice  of  the  subject,  couples  the  two  together  —  the  doctrine 
and  the  ordinance  —  and  says,  "John  came  into  all  the  coun 
try  about  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance."  And 
St.  Matthew,  after  briefly  mentioning  his  call  to  repent,  and 
referring  to  the  prophecy  in  Isa.  xl.  8,  with  like  simplicity 
relates,  that  "all  Jerusalem  went  out  to  him,  and  all  Judea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of 
him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins."  Whence  may  we  sup 
pose  such  reserve  upon  the  matter  to  have  arisen?  Was  it 
from  the  practice  of  religious  baptism  being  already  in  fami 
liar  use  among  the  Jews,  so  that  no  specific  information  was 
needed  respecting  the  mode  of  its  administration?  Or  did 
the  word  itself,  fiartTt^ct),  so  distinctly  indicate  the  kind  of  ac 
tion  employed,  that  all  acquainted  with  the  meaning  of  the 
word  would  understand  what  was  done?  Or,  finally,  did  it 
arise  from  no  dependence  being  placed  on  the  precise  mode, 
and  from  the  virtue  of  the  ordinance  being  necessarily  tied  to 
no  particular  form?  Any  of  these  suppositions  might  possi 
bly  account  for  the  peculiarity;  but  as  they  cannot  be  all  ad 
mitted,  it  is  of  some  importance,  that  we  know  which  has  the 
preferable  claim  on  our  belief. 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  295 

I.  To  look  first  to  the  term  employed — ^a^ri^co  has  the 
form  of  a  frequentative  verb  from  ftd-rco,  which  is  rarely  used 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  never  in  this  connexion.  Bdarra) 
means  simply  to  dip;  the  Latin  synonyms  are  mergo,  tingo; 
and  f9a;rroc  has  the  sense  of  tinctus.  The  word  was  used  of 
dipping  in  any  way,  and  very  commonly  of  the  operation  of 
dyeing  cloth  by  dipping;  whence  it  has  the  figurative  import 
of  dyeing,  with  a  collateral  reference  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  process  was  accomplished.  Taking  fkxjrtt£a>  for  a  fre 
quentative  of  fidx-cO)  the  earlier  glossaries  ascribed  to  it  the 
meaning  of  mergito,  as  is  stated  by  Vossius  in  his  Etymolo- 
gicon:  Cum  autem  t3d~~co  sit  mergo,  ^a^ri^aj  commode  verta- 
mus  mergito;  and  he  adds,  respecting  the  Christian  ordinance, 
prnesertim,  si  sermo  de  Christianorum  baptismo,  qui  trina  fit 
immersione.  If  this  view  were  correct,  it  would  be  necessary, 
to  a  right  administration  of  baptism,  that  the  subject  of  it 
should  not  only  be  immersed  in  water,  but  should  be  immersed 
several  times ;  so  that  not  immersion  only,  but .  repeated  im 
mersion,  would  be  the  constitutional  form.  In  mentioning 
definitely  three  times,  as  Vossius  does,  reference  is  made  to  a 
custom  that  came  early  into  use,  and  in  certain  portions  of 
Christendom  is  not  altogether  discontinued,  according  to  which 
a  threefold  action  was  employed  in  order  more  distinctly  to 
express  belief  in  a  triune  God.  Thus  Tertullian  writes,  Adv. 
Praxeam,  c.  26:.Novissime  mandavit  (viz.  Christus)  ut  tingue- 
rent  in  Patrem,  et  Filium,  et  Spiritum  Sanctum,  non  in  unum. 
Nam  nee  semel,  sed  ter,  ad  singula  nomina  in  personas  singu- 
las  tinguimur.  (Jhrysostom,  in  like  manner,  affirms,  that  the 
Lord  delivered  one  baptism  to  His  disciples  in  three  immer 
sions  of  the  body,  when  He  gave  the  command  to  baptize  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  (Horn,  de  fide, 
17.)  Jerome  and  others  mention  the  head  as  the  part  on 
which  the  threefold  immersion  was  performed.  Thus  Jerome, 
adv.  Luciferanos:  Nam  et  multa  alia,  quae  per  traditionem  in 
ecclesiis  observantur,  auctoritatem  sibi  scriptce  legis  usurpa- 
verunt,  velut  in  lavacro  ter  caput  mergitare,  deinde  aggressos, 
lactis  et  mellis  prsegustari  concordiam  ad  infantile  significa- 
tionem,  etc.  We  have  no  definite  information  as  to  the  time 


296  THE  USE  OF 

and  manner  in  which  this  threefold  immersing  of  the  head  in 
baptism  began  to  be  practised.  Jerome  admits,  that  there  is 
no  authority  for  it  in  Scripture,  and  that  it  was  observed  in 
his  day,  and  was  to  be  vindicated  merely  as  an  ancient  and 
becoming  usage.  It  very  probably  took  its  rise  about  the 
period  when  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  came  to  be  impugned 
by  the  theories  of  ancient  heretics,  toward  the  middle  or  latter 
part  of  the  second  century,  with  the  view  of  obtaining  from 
each  subject  of  baptism  a  distinct  and  formal  acknowledgment 
of  the  doctrine.  But  the  head  being  so  specially  mentioned 
as  the  part  immersed,  seems  to  imply  that  the  entire  person 
did  not  participate  in  the  action. 

This,  however,  only  by  the  way.  The  point  we  have  at 
present  more  immediately  to  consider,  is  the  precise  import 
of  panTi^co,  and  whether,  as  commonly  used,  it  was  taken  for 
the  frequentative  of  fidxrco.  We  have  said,  that  if  it  really 
were  a  frequentative,  it  must  indicate,  not  immersion  simply, 
but  repeated  immersion,  as  the  proper  form  of  administering 
baptism.  This,  however,  is  not  borne  out  by  the  usage.  The 
word  is  applied  to  denote  the  enveloping  of  objects  in  water, 
in  a  considerable  variety  of  ways,  and  without  any  distinct  or 
special  reference  to  the  act  of  dipping  or  plunging.  Thus  it 
is  used  by  Polybius  of  ships,  i.  51,  6,  xai  ~o)J.a  TMV  axaupwv 
;  and  in  like  manner  by  Josephus,  xoftepviJTyC)  oarez 
oMcoz  xpb  ~7jZ  Ou§)Jjjz  IftdftTcffev  Ixtbv  TO  axdcoz 
(Bel.  J.  iii.  8,  5:)  in  both  cases,  the  general  meaning,  sink,  is 
evidently  the  sense  to  be  adopted;  in  the  first,  "many  of  the 
skiffs  sunk ;"  in  the  second,  "of  his  own  accord  the  pilot  sunk 
the  skiff."  Speaking  of  Jonah's  vessel,  Josephus  uses  the  ex 
pression,  "the  vessel  being  all  but  ready  to  be  overwhelmed," 
or  sunk  (otrov  ouxco  /jtettovTOZ  fta.~Tirs.a6ac,  Ant.  ix.  10,  2;) 
and  again,  in  his  own  life,  §  2,  of  the  ship  that  he  sailed  in  to 
Home  being  swamped  in  the  Adriatic  (/Sdorr/fwroc  fyp&v  TOL> 
7r/o/oy,)  so  that  they  had  to  swim  through  the  whole  night. 
The  same  word  is  used  by  Diod.  Sic.  i.  36,  of  animals  drowned 
by  the  overflowing  of  the  Nile,  fab  TOTJ  TTOTatwi)  xspdrtfOsvTa 
deoupOsipertu  /fajtr/ffyieva,  and  by  Polybius,  both  of  horses  sink 
ing  in  a  marsh,  v.  47,  2,  and  of  infantry  being  plunged,  or 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  297 

covered  up  to  the  waist,  eVuc  TMV  ftcwccov  fkam£fyt&Mx;  so  that, 
whether  the  objects  were  covered  by  the  water  flowing  over 
them,  or  by  themselves  sinking  down  in  it,  the  word  ^ar.ri^co 
was  equally  applied.  lu  consideration  of  such  passages,  and 
others  of  a  like  kind,  Dr.  Gale,  in  his  Reflections  on  Wall's 
History  of  Infant  Baptism,  feels  constrained  to  say,  that  "the 
word,  perhaps,  does  not  so  necessarily  express  the  action  of 
putting  under  water,  as  in  general  a  thing  being  in  that  con 
dition,  no  matter  how  it  comes  to  be  so,  whether  it  is  put  into 
the  water,  or  the  water  comes  over  it;  though,  indeed,  to  put 
it  into  the  water  is  the  most  natural  way,  and  the  most  com 
mon,  and  is  therefore  usually  and  pretty  constantly,  but  it 
may  not  be  necessarily  implied."1  In  plain  terms,  PaTiri^a) 
does  not  always  mean  dip,  but  sometimes  bears  the  more  ge 
neral  import  of  being  under  water.  And  even  this  requires 
to  be  qualified;  for  when  dipping  appears  to  be  meant,  not 
the  whole,  but  only  a  part  of  the  object  seems  sometimes  to 
have  gone  under  water.  Pressed  by  such  uses  and  applica 
tions  of  the  term,  Dr.  Gale  says,  "We  readily  grant  that 
there  may  be  such  circumstances  in  some  cases,  which  neces 
sarily  and  manifestly  show,  that  the  thing  spoken  of  is  not 
said  to  be  dipt  all  over;  but  it  does  not  therefore  follow,  that 
the  word  in  that  place  does  not  signify  to  dip.  Mr.  Wall  will 
allow  his  pen  is  dipt  in  the  ink,  though  it  is  not  daubed  all 
over,  or  totally  immersed."2  This,  as  justly  remarked  by 
Wall,  is,  indeed,  to  contend  for  the  word,  but  at  the  same  time, 
"to  grant  away  the  thing;"  since,  "if  that  which  he  allows 
be  dipping,  the  controversy  is  at  an  end."  It  resolves  itself 
into  a  petty  question,  not  worth  contending  about,  how  much 
or  how  little  water  should  be  used  in  baptism — whether  this  or 
that  part  of  the  body  should  be  in  the  element.  Liddell  and 
Scott,  in  their  Lexicon,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  give  the 
fair  import  of  the  word,  as  used  by  profane  writers  and  Jose- 
phus,  when  they  represent  it  as  signifying  to  dip  underwater, 
to  sink,  to  lathe  or  soak.  It  denotes  somehow,  and  to  some 
extent,  a  going  into,  or  being  placed  under  water;  but  is  by 

1  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  iii.,  p.  122. 

2  D.  p.  145. 


298  THE  USE  OF  ftax 

no  means  definite  as  to  the  precise  mode  of  this  being  done, 
or  the  length  to  which  it  might  be  carried. 

When,  however,  we  turn  to  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  Apo 
crypha  and  the  New  Testament,  we  find  a  still  greater  latitude 
in  the  sense  put  upon  it.  In  the  apocryphal  book  Judith,  ch. 
xii.  7,  it  is  said  of  the  heroine  of  the  story,  that  "she  went  out 
every  night  to  the  valley  of  Bethulia,  and  baptized  herself  in 
the  camp  at  the  fountain  of  water" — xal  $pourcl££TO  iv  rrj 
irapefiftoAfl  ITU  r^c  TT^C  roD  udaroc:  which  can  scarcely  be 
understood  of  any  thing  but  some  sort  of  ablution  or  washing, 
since  the  action  is  reported  to  have  been  done  in  camp,  and 
not  in,  but  at  the  fountain  of  water.  Immersion  seems  to  be 
excluded,  both  by  the  publicity  of  the  scene,  and  by  the  re 
lation  indicated  to  the  fountain.  Another,  and,  if  possible, 
still  more  unequivocal  example,  occurs  in  the  Wisdom  of 
Sirach,  xxxiv.  25,  "When  one  is  baptized  from  a  dead  body — 
ftaTiTt^ofjisuoz  0.7:0  uszpoLt — and  touches  it  again,  of  what  avail 
is  his  washing"  (TW  Xourpw?)  The  passage  evidently  refers 
to  what  the  law  prescribed  in  the  way  of  purification  for  those 
who  had  come  into  contact  with  a  corpse.  And  this  we  learn 
from  Numb.  xix.  13,  19,  included  a  threefold  action — sprink 
ling  the  person  with  water,  mixed  with  the  ashes  of  a  red 
heifer,  bathing  it,  and  washing  the  clothes.  Plainly,  there 
fore,  the  {3a~Tt^o/jt.£yoz  of  the  son  of  Sirach  is  a  general  term 
expressive  of  the  whole  of  these;  it  includes  all  that  the  law 
required  as  to  the  application  of  water  for  the  purposes  of 
purification  in  the  case  supposed.  Nothing  but  a  controversial 
aim  could  lead  any  one  to  think  of  ascribing  another  meaning 
to  the  word  in  this  passage.  Dr.  Gale  informs  us,  that  "he 
remembered  the  time,  when  he  thought  it  a  very  formidable 
instance;"  but  bracing  himself  for  the  occasion,  he  again  re 
covered  his  composure,  and  corrected,  as  he  says,  his  mistake; 
nay,  he  even  came  to  "think  it  exceeding  clear  to  any  who 
are  willing  to  see  it,  that  a  further  washing  is  necessary  be 
sides  the  sprinklings  spoken  of,  and  that  this  washing  was 
the  finishing  of  the  ceremony.  The  defiled  person  was  to  be 
sprinkled  with  the  holy  water  on  the  third  and  on  the  seventh 
day,  only  as  a  preparatory  to  the  great  purification,  which  was 
to  be  by  washing  the  body  and  clothes  on  the  seventh  day, 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  299 

with  which  the  uncleanliness  ended."1  Such  is  the  shift  to 
which  a  controversialist  can  resort,  in  order  to  recover  his 
equanimity  from  a  formidable  instance !  So  far  from  any  sort 
of  bathing  at  the  close  being  the  chief  thing  in  the  ordinance, 
and  that  from  which  the  whole  might  be  designated,  the  bathing 
was  evidently  one  of  the  least;  for  it  is  not  so  much  as 
mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  where  the  service 
is  referred  to  (ch.  ix.  13.)  The  whole  stress  there  is  laid  on 
the  sprinkling  the  unclean  with  water,  mixed  with  the  ashes 
of  the  red  heifer;  nor  can  any  one  take  up  a  different  impres 
sion,  who  reads  the  passage  in  Numbers  with  an  unbiassed 
spirit.  For  there,  when  the  state  of  abiding  uncleanness  is 
denoted,  nothing  is  said  of  the  absence  of  bathing,  but  ac 
count  alone  is  made  of  the  ivater  of  separation  not  being 
sprinkled  on  him,  which  is  thrice  emphatically  repeated,  ver. 
9,  13,  20.  He  that  was  to  be  cut  off  from  his  people,  on  ac 
count  of  this  species  of  uncleanness,  was  to  suffer  excision 
simply  "because  the  water  of  separation  was  not  sprinkled 
upon  him."  So  that  the  ^carce^ofjiivot  of  the  son  of  Sirach, 
if  it  should  be  connected  with  one  part  of  the  transaction 
rather  than  another,  ought  plainly  to  be  viewed  as  having 
respect  chiefly  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  unclean  with  the  water, 
which  had  the  ashes  of  the  heifer  mingled  with  it;  but  the 
fairer  interpretation  is  to  view  it  as  inclusive  of  all  the  ablu 
tions  practised  on  the  occasion.2 

1  Wall  iii.,  154. 

2  An  explanation  has  been  given  of  the  passage  in  Numbers,  \vhich  goes  to 
an  extreme  on  the  opposite  side,  and  would  deny  that  the  person  who  under 
went  the  process  of  purification  from  the  touch  of  a  dead  body,  required  to  be 
bathed  at  all.     Thus  Dr.  Armstrong,  in  a  late  work  on  the  Doctrine  of  Bap 
tisms,  holds  respecting  Numb.  xix.  19,  "And  the  clean  person  shall  sprinkle 
upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh  day;   and  on  the  se 
venth  day  he  shall  purify  himself,  and  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in 
water,  and  shall  be  clean  at  even,"  that  this  is  meant  of  the  person  sprink 
ling,  not  of  the  person  sprinkled  upon.     And  he  thinks  this  is  made  quite 
certain  by  ver.  21,  which  ordains  it  as  a  perpetual  statute,  that  he  who  sprinkles 
the  unclean  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  be  unclean  till  the  evening  (p.  72.) 
But  such  an  explanation  will  not  stand.     For  the  latter  person  was  not  re 
quired  to  bathe  his  body  at  all;  he  had  simply  to  wash  his  clothes.     And  if 
he  had  been  meant  in  ver.  19,  there  could  have  been  no  propriety  in  laying 
stress  on  the  seventh  day,  any  more  than  the  third.     This  points  manifestly  to 
the  person  defiled  by  the  touch  of  the  dead. 


300  THE  USE  OF  ftarr 

In  New  Testament  Scripture  we  find  the  same  general  use 
of  the  word,  embracing,  in  like  manner,  various  ceremonial 
ablutions.  Thus  in  Heb.  ix,  10,  the  ancient  ritual  is  described 
as  "  standing  in  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  washings  — 
dcaybpozz  fjartrta/j.o'iz  —  and  carnal  ordinances."  The  diverse 
evidently  points  to  several  uses  of  water,  such  as  we  know  to 
have  actually  existed  under  the  law,  sprinklings,  washings, 
bathings.  If  it  had  been  but  one  mode  or  action  that  was  re 
ferred  to,  the  diverse  would  have  been  entirely  out  of  place. 
In  Mark  vii.  3,  4,  8,  it  is  said,  uThe  Pharisees,  and  all  the 
Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft  (iav  p.r^  Trvf/jfrJ  vlfiwv- 
TO.C  r«c  #^oaC,)  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders  ; 
and  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  are  bap 
tized  (lav  fj.7]  paxrlffcovTa:,)  they  eat  not."  This  latter  ex 
pression  is  undoubtedly  of  stronger  import  than  the  former 
one,  and  marks  a  difference  between  what  was  done  when 
they  came  from  the  market,  and  what  was  done  on  other 
and  commoner  occasions.  Dr.  Campbell,  who,  on  this  sub 
ject,  lends  his  support  to  the  views  of  the  Baptists,  concurs 
with  them  in  making  the  distinction  to  be  —  in  the  one  case 
a  simple  washing  of  the  hands,  or  pouring  water  on  them, 
and  an  immersion  of  them  in  the  other.  Dr.  Campbell  even 
throws  this  view  into  his  translation;  he  renders  the  one 
clause,  "until  they  wash  their  hands,  by  pouring  a  little  water 
on  them;"  and  the  other,  "  until  they  dip  them."  This  mode 
of  explanation,  however,  is  grammatically  untenable;  it  would 
have  required  the  repetition  of  the  rdc  £&2/>«c,  in  the  second 
clause,  after  the  paxTiacovrat)  if  the  verb  had  referred  to  the 
dipping  of  them  alone.  But  on  another  ground  this  suppo 
sition  must  be  abandoned;  for  /Sflorr/fai  is  never  applied  to  a 
part  of  the  body,  nor  is  even  Mco  ;  these  always  have  respect 
to  the  body  or  person  as  a  whole  ;  while  vlxTco  is  invariably 
the  word  used  when  some  particular  member  or  select  portion 
is  meant.1  Having  respect  to  this  usage,  and  marking  also 


1  Titmann's  Synonyms:  "kouw  viVtt'w;  they  differ  as  our  bathe  and  wash. 
Therefore  vijttinOa*,  is  used  of  any  particular  part  of  the  body,  not  only  of 
the  hands  or  feet;  but  kovacwOcu  of  the  whole  body.  Acts  ix.  37;  Horn.  II. 
w.  v.  582."  See  also  Trench's  Synonyms  under  the  words. 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  301 

that  the  verb  is  here  in  the  middle  voice,  having  a  reflective 
sense,  we  must  render  the  clause,  which  speaks  of  what  the 
Pharisees  did  on  coining  from  market,  "except  they  baptize 
(or  wash)  themselves,  they  eat  not;"  i.e.  they  first  perform  a 
general  ablution ;  for,  having  mingled  with  the  crowd  in  the 
market-place,  and  possibly  come  into  contact  with  some  un 
clean  person,  not  the  hands  alone,  as  in  ordinary  circumstances, 
but  the  whole  body,  was  supposed  to  need  a  purification.  Yet 
not  such  a  one  as  involved  a  total  immersion;  for  the  law 
only  required  this  in  extreme  cases  of  actual  and  ascertained 
pollution ;  in  cases  of  a  less  marked  or  palpable  description, 
it  was  done  by  sprinkling  or  washing.  And  we  are  the  rather 
led  to  think  of  this  mode  of  purification  here,  as  the  Evange 
list,  in  v.  4,  speaks  of  the  Pharisees  having  "many  other 
things  which  they  received  to  hold,  baptism  of  pots  and  cups, 
and  brazen  things,  and  couches;"  obviously  meaning,  not  im 
mersions,  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  washings  and  sprinklings, 
which  are  the  forms  of  purification  proper  to  such  things  as 
brazen  utensils,  pots,  and  couches. 

A  still  further,  and  very  decisive  use  of  the  verb  is  given  in 
Luke  xi.  38,  where  we  read  of  the  Pharisee  marvelling,  that 
our  Lord  ou  ifiaatriady  xpb  TOL>  dplffrov,  had  not  washed  be 
fore  dinner.  Even  Dr.  Campbell  finds  himself  obliged  to  ren 
der  here,  ahad  used  no  washing;"  judging  from  his  views  on 
other  passages  it  should  rather  have  been,  "had  not  immersed, 
or  bathed  himself."  If  the  Pharisees  had  been  wont  to  prac 
tise  immersion  before  dinner,  we  might  then  have  supposed, 
that  it  was  the  disuse  of  such  a  practice,  on  the  part  of  our 
Lord,  which  gave  occasion  to  the  wonder.  But  there  is  con 
clusive  evidence  to  the  contrary  of  this.  The  passage  already 
cited  from  the  Gospel  of  Mark  alone  proves  it;  for  the  wash 
ing  of  the  hands  merely  is  there  mentioned  as  the  ordinary 
kind  of  ablution  practised  by  the  Pharisees  before  dinner. 
And  Josephus  notices  it  among  the  peculiarities  of  the  Es- 
senes,  that  they  bathed  themselves  before  dinner  in  cold  water; 
plainly  implying,  that  in  this  they  differed  from  others.  There 
is  no  evidence  to  show,  and  it  is  against  probability  to  believe, 
that  private  baths  were  common  in  Judea ;  and,  indeed,  the 
26 


802  THE  USE  OF  fto~ri£ct) 

scarcity  of  water  for  a  great  part  of  the  year  rendered  it  next 
to  impossible  to  have  them  in  common  use. 

Nor  was  Judea  singular  in  this  respecj  in  more  ancient  times, 
and  in  states  of  society  similar  to  what  existed  there  in  the 
apostolic  age.  In  countries  also,  where  water  was  greatly 
more  abundant  than  in  Judea,  bathing  by  immersion  was  com 
paratively  little  practised  till  effeminate  and  luxurious  habits 
had  become  general,  and  even  then  it  was  not  always  so  fre 
quent  as  is  commonly  represented.  It  is  doubtful  if  the  Greeks 
in  earlier  times  practised  it.  Ulysses,  indeed,  is  represented 
by  Homer  as  going  into  the  bath  in  the  palace  of  Circe,  but 
the  bath  (d<ra/^'v^oc)  was  only  a  vessel  for  sitting  in ;  and  the 
water,  after  being  heated,  was  poured  over  the  head  and  shoul 
ders.  In  the  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Koman  Antiquities, 
edited  by  Dr.  Smith,  it  is  stated  (Art.  Balneal)  that,  "on  an 
cient  vases,  on  which  persons  are  represented  bathing,  we 
never  find  any  thing  corresponding  to  a  modern  bath,  in  which 
persons  can  stand  or  sit;  but  there  is  always  a  round  or  oval 
basin  (Aoonjp  or  JLounjpeov)  resting  on  a  stand,  by  the  side  of 
which  those  who  are  bathing  are  represented  standing  un 
dressed,  and  bathing  themselves."  "The  daily  bath,"  says 
Bekker  (Charicles,  p.  149,)  "  was  by  no  means  so  indispensable 
with  the  Greeks  as  it  was  with  the  Romans;  nay,  in  some  in 
stances  the  former  nation  looked  on  it  as  a  mark  of  degeneracy 
and  increasing  effeminacy,  when  the  baths  were  much  fre 
quented."  Various  proofs  are  given  of  this;  and  it  is  fur 
ther  stated,  that  in  the  Grecian  baths  there  appear  usually  to 
have  been,  beside  the  XOOTT^^  already  mentioned,  some  sort 
of  tubs,  in  which  the  persons  sat  or  stood.  Some  of  the  paint 
ings  represent  women  standing,  and  a  kind  of  shower-bath  de 
scending  on  them. 

To  return,  however,  to  the  subject  more  immediately  before 
us — it  seems  unquestionable,  that  according  to  Hellenistic, 
and  more  especially  to  Apocryphal  and  New  Testament  usage, 
the  verb  /Ja7rr/£<M  did  not  always  signify  immersion,  or  even 
the  being  totally  under  water,  but  included  the  more  general 
notion  of  ablution  or  washing.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  for 
supposing  it  to  have  borne  a  narrower  meaning  when  applied 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  303 

to  the  baptism  of  John  or  of  Christ.  We  thus  quite  naturally 
account  for  the  different  construction  used  in  coupling  the  act 
of  baptizing  with  the  instrument  employed.  Very  commonly 
the  baptism  is  said  to  have  been  done,  ev  UOO.T!,  "in  water;"  but 
Luke  has  simply  the  dative  after  the  verb,  If  at  p.£V  uoart  fiax- 
ri^co  (ch.  iii.  16,)  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water" — with 
that  as  the  instrument,  but  leaving  altogether  indeterminate 
the  mode  of  its  application.1  We  can  readily  conceive  the 
practice  to  have  varied.  When  administered  at  the  Jordan, 
or  where  there  was  plenty  of  water,  there  might  be  an  actual 
immersion,  or,  at  least  a  plentiful  affusion.  But  how  could 
there  well  be  such  a  thing  at  Jerusalem  about  the  time  of 
Pentecost  in  the  height  of  summer,  when  the  rite  had  to  be 
administered  to  several  thousands  at  once?  We  are  informed 
by  a  most  credible  witness,  that  in  summer  there  is  no  running 
stream  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem,  except  the  rill  of  Siloam, 
a  few  rods  in  length,  and  that  the  city  is,  and  was  supplied 
with  water  from  its  cisterns,  and  public  reservoirs  chiefly  sup 
plied  by  rain  early  in  the  season.2  It  is  not  unworthy  of  no 
tice  also,  that  we  learn  from  the  same  competent  authority, 
that  the  baptismal  fonts  still  found  among  the  ruins  of  the 
most  ancient  Greek  churches  in  Palestine,  and  dating,  it  is 
understood,  from  very  remote  times,  are  not  large  enough  to 
admit  of  the  baptism  of  adult  persons  by  immersion,  and  from 
their  structure  were  obviously  never  intended  to  be  so  used.3 
And  it  may  be  still  further  noted  as  an  additional  confirma 
tion  of  the  view  taken,  that  in  the  old  Latin  version  the  verb 
ftaxTt£<t)  was  not  rendered  by  immergo  or  mergito — as  if  those 
words  were  somehow  too  definite  or  partial  in  their  import  to 

1  Dr.  Campbell  most  unwarrantably  translates  this  passage  in  Luke's 
Gospel,  "baptize  in  water,"  as  if  it  were  ev  vSaft;  and  so,  has  rendered 
himself  justly  liable  to  the  rebuke  which,  in  his  note  on  Matt.  iii.  11,  he  has 
administered  to  those  who  translate  Iv  vdatt,  with  water:  "It  is  to  be  re 
gretted  that  we  have  so  much  evidence,  that  even  good  and  learned  men 
allow  their  judgments  to  be  warped  by  the  sentiments  and  customs  of  the 
sect  which  they  prefer.     The  true  partisan  always  inclines  to  correct  the 
diction  of  the  Spirit  by  that  of  the  party."     So,  sometimes,  does  the  man 
who  unduly  presses  a  particular  opinion. 

2  Dr.  Robinson's  Researches,  vol.  i.,  sec.  7,  $  9. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.,  sec.  x. 


304  THE  USE  OF 

be  presented  as  equivalents.     It  preferred  adhering  to  the 
Greek,  and  simply  gave  baptizo. 

II.  A  second  point  demanding  examination,  is  that  which 
respects  proselyte-baptism  among  the  Jews.  Did  this  exist 
prior  to  John's  baptism  ?  In  other  words,  did  he  simply  adopt 
an  existing  institution?  or  did  he  introduce  what  might  be  de 
signated  a  new  ordinance?  Both  sides  of  this  question  have 
been  zealously  maintained,  and  the  discussion  of  it  has  given 
rise  to  long  and  learned  investigations,  both  in  this  country 
and  on  the  continent,  into  that  department  of  Jewish  antiqui 
ties.  In  favour  of  the  prior  existence  of  Jewish  proselyte- 
baptism  we  find,  among  others,  the  names  of  Lightfoot,  Schott- 
gen,  Selden,  Buxtorf,  Wetstein,  Michaelis,  Hammond,  Wall, 
etc. ;  and  against  it  Owen,  Carpzov,  Lardner,  Paulus,  De 
Wette,  Schneckenburger,  (in  an  elaborate,  separate  treatise,) 
Ernesti,  Moses  Stuart,  etc.  The  existence  of  Jewish  baptism, 
as  an  ancient  initiatory  rite  for  proselytes,  was  more  common 
ly  believed  in  former  generations,  than  it  is  now.  Not  a  few 
of  the  writers  mentioned  in  the  first  of  the  above  lists,  spoke 
of  it  as  a  matter  about  which  it  was  scarcely  possible  to  en 
tertain  a  shadow  of  doubt.  Thus  Wall  gives  expression  to 
their  views,  "It  is  evident  that  the  custom  of  the  Jews  before 
our  Saviour's  time,  (and  as  they  themselves  affirm,  from  the 
beginning  of  their  law,)  was  to  baptize,  as  well  as  circumcise 
any  proselyte,  that  came  over  to  them  from  the  nations.  This 
does  fully  appear  from  the  books  of  the  Jews  themselves,  and 
also  of  others,  that  understood  the  Jewish  customs,  and  have 
written  of  them.  They  reckoned  all  mankind  beside  them 
selves  to  be  in  an  unclean  state,  and  not  capable  of  being  en 
tered  into  the  covenant  of  Israelites  without  a  washing  or 
baptism,  to  denote  their  purification  from  their  uncleanness. 
And  this  was  called  the  baptizing  of  them  into  Moses."1 

Now,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  ample  quotations  can  be 
produced  (Dr.  Wall  has  great  store  of  them)  in  support  of 
these  positions.  But  then  what  sort  of  quotations?  Are  they 
of  a  kind  to  bear  with  decisive  evidence  on  the  state  of  mat- 

1  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  vol.  i.,  p.  4. 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  305 

ters  in  the  gospel  age?  It  is  here,  that  when  the  authorities 
are  looked  into,  they  prove  insufficient  for  the  end  they  are 
intended  to  serve;  for,  so  far  from  finding  any  attestations 
among  them  respecting  the  existence  of  proselyte-baptism  in 
the  apostolic  age,  we  are  rather  apt  to  he  struck  with  the  to 
tal  want  of  evidence  on  the  point;  and  the  want  of  it  in 
writings  which,  if  it  could  have  been  had,  might  have  been 
confidently  expected  to  furnish  it.  In  the  inspired  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament  no  notice  is  taken  of  any  ordinance  con 
nected  with  the  admission,  either  of  native  Jews  or  converted 
Gentiles,  into  the  Covenant,  except  that  of  circumcision.  Nor 
is  mention  once  made  of  any  other  in  the  Apocrypha,  or  in 
the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  or  in  Philo  and  Jose- 
phus,  notwithstanding  the  references  which  abound  in  their 
writings,  to  Jewish  rites  and  customs.  There  is  a  like  silence 
upon  the  subject  in  the  Patristic  productions  of  the  first  three 
or  four  centuries,  and  in  those  of  the  Jewish  Rabbis  for  the 
same  period.  So  far  as  the  direct  evidence  goes,  the  very 
utmost  that  can  be  said  is,  that  indications  appear  of  Jewish 
proselyte-baptism  as  an  existing  practice  during  the  fourth 
century  of  the  Christian  era.  And  as  there  is  no  historical 
ground  for  supposing  it  to  have  been  then  originated,  it  may, 
with  some  probability,  be  held  to  have  been  commonly  in  ope 
ration  for  a  certain  time  previously.  But  if  we  inquire  when, 
or  how,  we  can  find  no  satisfactory  answer;  all  is  involved  in 
uncertainty.1 

1  Schneckenburger,  in  the  treatise  above  referred  to,  besides  giving  a  clear 
historical  survey  of  the  opinions  and  literature  upon  the  subject,  has  satis 
factorily  established  the  following  positions.  (1.)  The  regular  admission  of 
strangers  into  the  Jewish  religion,  while  the  temple  stood,  was  done  through 
circumcision  and  sacrifice — a  lustration,  however,  preceding  the  sacrifice, 
which,  like  all  other  lustrations,  obtained  merely  as  a  Levitical  purification, 
not  as  an  initiatory  rite.  This  appears  from  a  variety  of  soui'ces,  and  espe 
cially  from  several  passages  in  Josephus,  (such  as  Ant.  xiii.  9,  xx.  2,  xviii. 
8,  4,)  in  which  the  reception  of  individuals  from  other  lands  is  expressly 
treated  of,  and  no  mention  is  made  of  baptism.  (2.)  The  lustration  performed 
on  the  occasion  did  not  differ  in  outward  form  from  the  ordinary  lustrations ? 
but,  like  these,  was  practised  by  the  proselytes  merely  upon  themselves. 
(3.)  This  lustration  by  and  by  took  the  place  of  the  discontinued  sacrifice, 
yet  not  probably  till  the  end  of  the  third  century ;  and  was  then,  for  the  most 

26* 


306  THE  USE  OF  y9«7ZT/£a» 

From  the  state  of  the  evidence,  therefore,  respecting  prose 
lyte-baptism  among  the  Jews,  we  are  not  entitled  to  found 
any  thing  on  it  in  respect  to  the  subject  under  consideration, 
since  it  is  not  such  as  to  enable  us  to  draw  any  definite  con 
clusions  regarding  its  existence  or  form  in  the  gospel  age.  We 
are  not  on  that  account,  however,  to  hold  that  there  was  no 
thing  in  the  usages  of  the  time  tending  in  the  direction  of  a 
baptismal  service,  and  that  the  institution  of  such  a  service 
in  connexion  with  a  new  state  of  things  in  the  kingdom  of 
God,  must  have  had  an  altogether  strange  and  novel  appear 
ance.  For,  in  the  ancient  religions  generally,  and  in  the  Mo 
saic  religion  in  particular,  there  was  such  a  frequent  use  of 
water,  by  means  of  washings,  sprinklings,  and  immersions,  to 
indicate  the  removal  of  defilement,  that  the  coupling  of  a  great 
attempt  towards  reformation  with  an  administration  of  baptism, 
could  scarcely  have  appeared  otherwise  than  natural  and  pro 
per.  In  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics  we  find  constant  re 
ferences  to  this  symbolical  use  of  water.  Thus,  in  Virgil, 
.ZEn.  ii.  17,  Tu,  genitor,  cape  sacra  manu,  patriosque  Penates; 
Me  bello  e  tan  to  digressum  et  caede  recenti,  Attrectare  nefas ; 
donee  flumine  vivo  abluero.  Macrobius,  Sat.  iii.,  Constat 
Diis  superis  sacra  facturum  corporis  ablutione  purgari.  Por 
phyry,  de  Abstin.  iv.  7,  says  of  the  priests  of  Egypt,  roiz  ~"^C 
•fj[jL£pa.Z  d.7izXou(javTO  (f>u^ow.  Ovid  speaks  of  the  belief  in  the 
efficacy  of  ablutions  as  not  only  prevailing,  but  prevailing  too 
extensively  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans: — Omne  nefas, 
omnemque  mali  purgamina  causam  Credebant  nostri  tollere 
posse  senes.  Graecia  principium  moris  fuit;  ilia  nocentes 
Impia  lustratos  ponere  facta  putat.  Ah!  nimium  faciles,  qui 
tristia  crimina  caedis,  Flumina  tolli  posse  putetis  aqua  (Fasti, 
ii.  35.)  Many  other  passages  might  be  cited  to  the  same  ef- 

part,  still  performed  as  a  self-lustration  in  connexion  with  the  circumcision 
that  followed  it:  but  in  the  case  of  women  was  done  apart  from  the  latter, 
and  in  process  of  time  came  to  be  applied,  as  a  proper  initiatory  rite,  as  in 
the  case  of  slaves  and  foundlings.  (4.)  Hence,  a  derivation  of  the  baptism 
of  John  or  Christ  from  this  Jewish  custom,  is  not  to  be  thought  of;  but  it  is 
to  be  accounted  for  from  the  general  use  and  significance  of  lustrations  among 
the  Jews,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  expectations  entertained  respecting 
the  new  state  of  things  to  be  introduced  by  the  Messiah. 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  807 

feet,  but  these  are  enough.  The  state  of  feeling  and  practice 
among  the  Jews  was  only  so  far  different,  that  they  had  a  bet 
ter  foundation  to  rest  upon,  and  ordinances  of  service  directly 
appointed  by  Heaven  to  observe.  Among  these,  as  already 
noticed,  divers  baptisms — baptisms  by  washing,  sprinkling, 
and  immersion — were  imposed  on  them ;  and  both  the  priests 
daily,  when  they  entered  the  Temple,  and  the  ordinary  wor 
shippers  on  ever-recurring  occasions,  had  ablutions  of  various 
kinds  to  perform.  Not  only  so,  but  it  was  matter  of  public 
notoriety,  that  the  Essenes,  who  carried  their  notions  and 
practices  somewhat  farther  than  others  in  ceremonial  obser 
vance,  admitted  converts  into  their  number  by  a  solemn  act 
of  lustration,  making  it  strictly  an  initiatory  rite ;  for  only 
after  this  purifying  service  had  been  undergone,  and  two  years 
of  probation  had  been  passed,  could  the  applicant  be  admitted 
into  full  connexion  with  the  society,  (Josephus'  Wars,  ii.  8,  6.) 
Taking  all  these  things  into  account,  and  remembering,  be 
sides,  how  frequently  in  the  Old  Testament  the  purification 
to  be  effected  upon  the  soul  of  true  penitents,  and  of  those 
especially  who  were  to  live  when  the  great  period  of  reforma 
tion  came,  is  represented  under  the  symbol  of  a  water-purifi 
cation,  (Ps.  xxvi.  6;  Isa.  i.  16,  lii.  15;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25;  Zech. 
xiii.  1,)  we  can  scarcely  conceive  how  it  should  have  appeared 
in  any  way  startling  or  peculiar  that  John,  who  so  expressly 
called  men  to  repentance  and  amendment  of  life,  as  prepara 
tory  to  a  new  phase  of  the  Divine  administration,  should  have 
accompanied  his  preaching  with  an  ordinance  of  baptism.  The 
ideas,  the  practices,  the  associations,  the  hopes  of  the  time, 
were  such  as  to  render  an  act  of  this  kind  both  a  natural  ex 
pression  and  a  fitting  embodiment  of  his  doctrine.  Hence, 
when  John  gave  a  succession  of  denials  to  the  interrogatories 
of  the  Pharisees,  such  as  they  understood  to  be  a  renuncia 
tion  of  any  claim  on  his  part  to  the  character,  either  of  Mes 
siah  or  of  Messiah's  forerunner,  they  asked  him,  "  Why  bap- 
tizest  thou,  then,  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias,  neither 
that  prophet?"  (John  i.  25;) — they  would  have  been  nowise 
surprised  had  any  one  of  these  come  with  an  ordinance  of 
baptism;  they  only  wondered  that  John,  disclaiming,  as  they 


308  '    THE  USE  OF  paTCrl^G) 

thought,  being  identified  with  one  or  other  of  them,  should 
still  have  made  himself  known  as  the  dispenser  of  such  an  or 
dinance. 

After  what  has  been  stated,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add, 
that  it  is  a  matter  of  no  moment  in  what  manner  Jewish  pro 
selyte-baptism  was  administered,  when  it  came  to  be  regularly 
established.  For,  as  we  have  no  certain,  or  even  very  proba 
ble  evidence  of  its  existence  till  some  centuries  after  the 
Christian  era,  the  mode  of  its  administration  can  have  no 
bearing  on  the  question  of  baptism  by  John  or  the  apostles. 
According  to  the  descriptions  given  of  it  by  Maimonides  and 
other  Jewish  writers  (as  may  be  seen  in  Wall,)  it  appears  to 
have  been  done  by  immersion;  but  these  descriptions  belong 
to  a  period  long  subsequent  to  the  apostolic  age.  In  de 
scribing  the  practice  of  the  Essenes,  which,  perhaps,  comes 
the  nearest  to  the  new  rite  of  any  known  existing  custom, 
Josephus  uses  the  words  d-oMa)  (wash  off,)  and  frr-vela, 
cleansing;  pointing  rather  to  the  operations  of  the  lavacrum 
or  Xowcrjpiov,  than  to  the  act  of  immersion  in  a  pool  or  bathing- 
tub.  And  it  is  always  by  words  of  a  like  nature — words'in- 
dicative  of  washing,  cleansing,  and  such  like,  that  the  ablu 
tions  of  the  Old  Testament  ritual  are  described;  as  in  Lev. 
xvi.  28,  where  it  is  in  the  Septuagint,  xlovs'c  ra  Iftdrea  xo.l 
Ao'jffsrae  TO  ffco/ia  WJTQ~J  5o«rr,  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and 
bathe  (in  any  of  the  forms)  his  body  with  water.  It  was  not, 
in  short,  by  any  precise  mode  of  applying  the  water,  but  to 
the  cleansing  property  or  effect  of  the  water,  when  applied, 
that  respect  appears  to  have  been  had  in  the  descriptions  re 
ferred  to. 

III.  A  third  line  of  reflection  will  be  found  to  conduct  us 
substantially  to  the  result  we  have  already  arrived  at.  It  is 
derived  from  the  incidental  allusions  and  explanatory  expres 
sions  occurring  in  Scripture,  both  in  respect  to  the  symboli 
cal  use  of  water  generally,  and  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
in  particular.  In  nearly  all  of  these  it  is  simply  the  cleansing 
property  of  the  water,  its  washing  virtue,  which  is  rendered 
prominent.  For  example,  in  Acts  xxii.  1G,  "Arise,  and  be 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  809 

baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord;"  or  in  Eph.  v.  25,  26,  "Christ  loved  the  Church,  and 
gave  Himself  for  it,  that  He  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it, 
by  the  washing  of  water  by  (lit.  in)  the  Word."  Here  the 
reference  is  not  exclusively  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism ;  for 
the  cleansing  spoken  of  is  represented  as  finding  its  accom 
plishment  "in  the  Word" — being  wrought  mainly  in  the  soul 
through  the  belief  of  the  truth.  Yet,  along  with  the  more 
direct  and  inward  instrumentality,  the  apostle  couples  that  of 
baptism,  and  points,  while  he  does  so,  to  the  cleansing  pro 
perty  of  the  symbolical  element  employed  in  its  administra 
tion.  The  same  also  is  done  in  such  expressions  as  "But  ye 
are  washed,"  "lie  hath  washed  us  from  our  sins,"  "He  hath 
saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;"  in  each  of  them  the  language  employed  is 
founded  on  the  baptismal  use  of  water,  and  bears  respect 
simply  to  its  natural  adaptation  to  purposes  of  cleansing.  On 
this  alone  the  attention  is  fixed. 

It  adds  force  to  the  argument  derived  from  these  considera 
tions,  to  observe,  that  the  word  baptism  is  sometimes  used  of 
circumstances  and  events,  in  regard  to  which  the  mode  was 
entirely  different,  and  only  the  main,  fundamental  idea  alike. 
Thus  in  1  Cor.  x.  2,  the  apostle  represents  the  Israelites  as 
having  been  all  baptized  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea;  where  nothing  but  the  most  fanciful  imagination,  or  the 
most  determined  partisanship  can  think  of  an  immersion  being 
indicated.1  The  two  actions  classed  together  were  quite  dif 
ferent  in  form;  and  neither  the  one  nor  the  other — neither 
the  passing  under  the  cloud,  nor  the  going  dry-shod  through 
the  Red  Sea,  possessed  the  reality,  or  even  bore  the  semblance 
of  a  dipping.  In  1  Peter  iii.  20,  21,  the  preservation  of  Noah 
by  the  waters  of  the  deluge,  which  destroyed  the  ungodly,  is 
represented  as  a  species  of  baptism — baptism  in  the  type. 
And  there  also  it  was  plainly  of  no  moment  what  corporeal 

1  One  would  almost  think  it  was  in  &jeux  d* esprit  some  one  had  said  of  Mo 
ses  -walking  through  the  sea  on  dry  ground,  "  He  got  a  dry  dip.  And  could 
not  a  person,  literally  covered  -with  oil-cloth,  get  a  dry  immersion  in  •water?" 
But  it  is  Dr.  Carson  who  has  put  his  name  to  such  solemn  trifling. 


310  THE  USE  OF 

position  Noah  occupied  relatively  to  the  waters — whether 
above  or  below  them.  This  is  not  brought  at  all  into  notice. 
The  simple  point  of  comparison  between  the  Old  and  the  New 
is,  that  with  Noah,  as  with  us,  there  was  an  element  accom 
plishing  a  twofold  process — the  destruction  of  the  evil,  and 
the  preservation  of  the  good.  He  was  saved  in  the  ark  through 
that  which  destroyed  others;  precisely  as  we,  when  our  bap 
tism  becomes  truly  operative  in  our  experience,  are  saved  by 
that  regenerative  and  sanctifying  grace,  which  at  once  destroys 
the  inherent  evil  in  our  natures,  and  brings  to  them  a  partici 
pation  of  a  Divine  life.  In  each  of  these  illustrative  cases 
no  stress  whatever  is  laid  upon  the  particular  form  or  mode, 
in  which  they  respectively  differed ;  in  regard  to  none  of  them 
is  it  so  much  as  distinctly  referred  to,  and  the  whole  point  of 
the  comparison  is  made  to  turn  on  the  separation,  the  cleansing 
process  effected  between  the  evil  and  the  good — the  corruption 
of  nature,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  saving  grace  of  God,  on 
the  other. 

Even  the  passages  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  13,  in 
which  tne  apostle  speaks  of  baptism  as  a  burial,  and  which 
Baptists  usually  contend  is  founded  on  the  specific  mode  of 
immersion — even  these,  when  viewed  in  connexion  with  the 
representations  already  noticed,  instead  of  invalidating,  rather 
confirm  the  deduction  we  are  seeking  to  establish.  For,  on 
the  supposition  of  a  reference  being  made  merely  to  the  mode 
of  administration,  it  would  surely  be  to  present  us  with  a  most 
incongruous  association,  if  one  and  the  same  act  were  held  to 
be  significant,  in  its  simply  external  aspect,  at  once  of  an  in 
terment  and  a  cleansing.  What  natural  relation  have  these 
to  each  other  ?  What  proper  affinity  ?  Manifestly  none  what 
ever;  and  if  the  same  ordinance  is  somehow  expressive  of  both 
ideas,  it  cannot  possibly  be  through  its  form  of  administration ; 
it  must  be  got  by  looking  above  this  (whatever  precisely  that 
may  be,)  and  taking  into  account  the  spiritual  things  symbol 
ized  and  exhibited  in  the  ordinance.  Indeed,  as  burial  was 
commonly  practised  in  the  East,  it  did  not  present  even  a 
formal  resemblance  to  an  immersion  in  water ;  for,  usually  the 
body,  and  in  particular  our  Lord's  body,  was  not  let  down, 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  311 

as  with  us,  into  an  open  sepulchre,  but  placed  horizontally  in 
the  side  of  a  cave,  and  there  not  unfrequently  lifted  up  as  on 
a  ledge.  Such  an  act  could  not  be  said  to  look  like  a  dip  into 
water;  and  if,  on  the  ground  of  an  external  resemblance,  they 
had  been  so  associated  by  the  apostle,  it  would  have  been  im 
possible  to  vindicate  the  connexion  from  the  charge  of  an  un 
regulated  play  of  fancy.  But  there  is  here  nothing  of  the 
kind.  The  apostle  is  viewing  baptism  as  the  initiatory  ordi 
nance  that  exhibits  and  confirms  the  believer's  union  to 
Christ — the  crucified  and  risen  Redeemer;  and  to  give  the 
greater  distinctness  to  the  representation,  he  places  the  be 
liever's  fellowship  with  Christ  successively  in  connexion  with 
the  several  stages  of  Christ's  redemptive  work — His  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  reckoning  these  as  so  many  stages 
in  the  believer's  personal  history.  And  as  thus,  the  very 
substance  of  the  statement  shows,  how  Paul  was  looking  to  the 
realities,  not  to  the  mere  forms  of  things,  so,  as  if  the  more 
to  take  our  thoughts  off  from  the  forms,  he  varies  the  figure, 
passes  from  the  idea  of  being  buried  with  Christ,  to  that  of 
being,  like  saplings,  planted  in  the  likeness  of  His  death  and 
resurrection.  But  if  immersion  in  water  has  little  resemblance 
to  an  Eastern  burial,  it  has  still  less  to  the  process  of  planting 
a  shoot  in  the  ground,  that  it  may  spring  up  into  life  and 
fruitfulness.  Thus,  the  figures,  with  the  truth  couched  under 
them,  only  become  intelligible  and  plain,  when  they  are  viewed 
in  relation  to  tlje  spiritual  design  of  the  ordinance. 

There  is  still  another  passage,  to  which,  in  this  connexion, 
reference  should  be  made ;  for  although  it  does  not  directly 
discourse  of  baptism,  it  proceeds  on  the  ideas  commonly  asso 
ciated  in  our  Lord's  time  with  the  religious  use  of  water,  and 
on  which  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  certainly  founded.  The 
passage  is  John  xiii.  1—17,  which  narrates  the  action  of  wash 
ing  the  disciples'  feet  by  our  Lord.  The  action  had  a  twofold 
significance.  It  was  intended,  in  the  first  instance,  to  exhibit 
an  affecting  and  memorable  proof  of  our  Lord's  lowly  and 
loving  condescension  toward  His  disciples— one,  He  gave  them 
to  understand,  which  in  spirit  must  be  often  repeated  among 
themselves.  But,  besides  this,  it  pointed  to  the  necessity  of 


312  THE  USE  OF  J3a~~i£a) 

spiritual  cleansing  —  to  its  necessity,  even  in  the  case  of  those 
•who  have  already  become  the  disciples  of  Christ.  They  must 
be  perpetually  repairing  to  Him  for  fresh  purifications.  Of 
this  symbolic  import  of  the  action  Peter  soon  betrayed  his 
ignorance  —  though  really  not  more  ignorant,  but  only  more 
prompt  and  outspoken  than  the  others  —  when  he  declared  that 
Jesus  should  never  wash  his  feet.  The  reply  this  drew  forth 
was,  "If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part  with  Me,"  indi 
cating  that  a  deep  symbolic  import  attached  to  the  service, 
on  account  of  which  all  the  disciples  behooved  to  submit  to  it. 
And  now  Peter,  catching  a  glimpse  of  his  Master's  meaning, 
exclaimed,  "Lord,  not  my  feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and 
head."  To  this  Jesus  again  replied,  '0  hXoofjLevo^  ou  %psiav 

)C£  Ion  xa.0a.fjbz  o/o^;  —  where 


we  are  to  mark  the  change  of  verb  in  the  first  member  —  the 


i'vo^,  referring  to  a  general  washing,  the  cleansing  of 
the  whole  body,  and  the  vtyaaOae,  the  cleansing  merely  of 
the  feet  —  in  accordance  with  the  usage  previously  noticed 
(p.  300.)  By  reason  of  their  relation  to  Christ,  the  disciples 
(all  except  Judas,  who  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the 
rest  in  what  immediately  follows)  had  been,  in  a  manner, 
washed;  that  is,  they  were  in  an  accepted  or  justified  con 
dition,  which,  with  reference  to  the  action  of  washing,  our 
Lord  designated  clean.  But  they  could  only  abide  in  this 
condition  (our  Lord  would  have  them  to  understand)  by  per 
petually  repairing  to  Him  for  deliverance  from  the  partial 
defilements  which  they  contracted  in  the  world;  so  that  the 
one  great  baptism  into  a  forgiven  and  purified  condition  must 
be  followed  up  by  ever  recurring  lesser  baptisms.  But  in 
both  cases  alike,  it  is  the  cleansing  virtue  alone  of  the  outward 
service  that  is  made  account  of;  it  is  the  washing  away  alone 
of  contracted  defilement  ;  and  if  that  idea  is  made  prominent  in 
the  use  of  the  water,  we  naturally  and  reasonably  infer,  the 
design  of  the  symbol  will  in  any  case  be  accomplished. 

On  the  whole,  two  things  seem  perfectly  clear,  from  all  that 
is  written  in  Scripture  respecting  what  is  external  in  the  ordi 
nance  of  baptism.  The  first  is,  that  there  is  nothing,  either 
in  the  expressions  employed  concerning  it,  or  in  the  circum- 


AND  ITS  COGNATES.  313 

stances  of  its  institution,  to  fix  the  Church  down  to  a  specific 
form  of  administration,  as  essential  to  its  proper  being  and 
character.  This  sufficiently  appears  from  the  considerations 
already  adduced;  but  the  view  might  be  greatly  strengthened, 
by  comparing  the  indeterminateness  which  characterizes  the 
language  respecting  baptism,  with  the  remarkable  precision 
and  definitiveness  with  which  the  appointments  were  made  in 
Old  Testament  ordinances.  In  these  the  form  was  essential, 
and  hence  its  minutest  details  were  prescribed — the  day,  the 
place,  the  materials  to  be  employed,  and  the  manner  of  em 
ploying  them:  all  were  matter  of  explicit  legislation.  But  in 
the  New  Testament  ordinance  it  is  otherwise,  because,  while 
the  rite  itself  is  imperative,  nothing  of  moment  depends  upon 
the  precise  form  of  administration.  The  second  conclusion  is, 
that  the  use  of  water  in  baptism  is  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively, 
for  the  purpose  of  symbolizing  the  cleansing  and  regenerative 
nature  of  the  change,  which  those,  who  are  the  proper  subjects, 
must  undergo  on  entering  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  So  that 
the  prominent  idea — the  one  point  on  which  the  general  tenor 
of  Scripture  would  lead  us  to  lay  stress — is  the  cleansing  pro 
perty  of  the  element  applied  to  the  body,  not  the  precise 
manner  of  its  administration.  And  we  may  fairly  regard  it 
as  an  additional  confirmation  of  the  soundness  of  our  views 
in  both  these  respects,  that  when  we  look  from  the  external 
symbol  to  the  internal  reality,  we  find  the  same  disregard  as 
to  form,  coupled  with  the  same  uniformity  as  to  substantial 
import.  It  is  said,  we  are  baptized  in  the  Spirit  (sv  Trusti/mre 
d:('uo,  Matt.  iii.  11 ;  John  i.  33 ;  Acts  i.  5 ;)  but  this  is  described 
as  taking  effect  by  the  Spirit  descending  into  us,  not  by  our 
being  immersed  into  the  Spirit — by  His  being  poured  out 
upon  us,  or  coming  to  abide  in  us.  The  cloven  tongues  as 
of  fire,  which  at  the  first  imaged  the  fact  of  his  descent  on 
the  apostles,  appeared  sitting  on  them ;  it  was  not  an  element, 
into  which  they  themselves  were  plunged,  but  a  form  of  power 
resting  upon  them.  In  a  word,  it  is  the  internal,  vivifying, 
regenerative  agency,  which  alone  is  important;  the  mode  in 
which  it  is  represented  as  coming  into  operation  is  varied, 
27 


314  THE  USE  OF 

because  pointing  to  -what  in  the  ordinance  is  not  absolutely 
fixed  or  strictly  essential. 

We  have  confined  our  attention,  in  the  preceding  line  of 
inquiry,  to  what  properly  belongs  to  the  exegetical  province. 
Our  immediate  object  has  been  to  ascertain,  by  every  fair  and 
legitimate  consideration,  the  Scriptural  import  of  fia-ri^co  and 
ftdftreffpa,  as  applied  to  the  baptism  of  John  and  our  Lord. 
The  doctrine  of  baptism — the  truths  it  involves,  the  obliga 
tions  it  imposes,  its  proper  subjects,  and  the  parties  by  whom 
it  should  be  administered — these  are  topics  that  belong  to 
another  department  of  theological  inquiry.  We  shall  merely 
advert,  in  conclusion,  to  one  or  two  expressions,  in  which  the 
word  to  baptize  is  coupled  with  certain  adjuncts,  used  to  indi 
cate  more  definitely  its  nature  and  object.  In  respect  to 
John's  baptism,  the  common  adjuncts  are,  ere  perdvoeav,  e;c 
d<f£ffw  tipapTccov,  into  repentance,  into  remission  of  sins — that 
is,  into  these  as  the  aim  and  result  of  the  ordinance.  The 
same  general  relation  is  sometimes  expressed  in  regard  to 
Christ's  baptism,  only  the  object  is  different;  as  when  it  is 
said  to  be  ere  &  ffcofta  (1  Cor.  xii.  13,)  et£  Xptffrbv  >/TjffOWJ 
or  s/c  TOV  dduarov  a\jrorj  (Rom.  vi.  3) — into  these,  as  the  end 
or  object  aimed  at  in  the  ordinance.  To  be  baptized  into  a 
person — into  Christ,  for  example,  or  into  His  body — means, 
to  be  through  baptism  formally  admitted  into  personal  fellow 
ship  with  Him,  and  participation  in  the  cause  or  work  asso 
ciated  with  His  name.  And  not  materially  different  is  the 
expression  of  being  baptized,  Iv  rw  dvoparc  rou  Kupeoo  (Acts 
x.  48,)  also  ITTI  TOJ  ovo/tare  Y^tfoy  (Acts  ii.  38 ;)  the  import  of 
which  is — not  that  the  original  formula  given  by  the  Lord 
was  dispensed  with — that  instead  of  it  Christ's  name  simply 
was  pronounced  over  the  baptized;  but  that  they  were  bap 
tized  into  the  faith  of  His  person  and  salvation,  or  into  the 
profession  and  hope  of  all  that  His  name  indicates  for  those 
who  own  His  authority,  and  trust  in  His  merits. 


HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  815 

SECTION  SIXTH. 

IMPORT  AND  USES  OF  HADES,  v Atdrfa  IN  SCRIPTURE. 

THIS  is  one  of  the  few  words  employed  by  the  sacred  writers 
which  played  a  prominent  part  in  the  mythologies  of  Greece 
and  Rome;  and  it  is  of  importance,  for  the  correct  interpre 
tation  of  certain  portions  of  New  Testament  Scripture,  to  as 
certain,  whether  the  sense  which  it  bears  in  the  sacred,  is  the 
same  with  that  which  it  bore  in  the  profane  territory;  or  what, 
if  any,  may  have  been  the  modifications  it  underwent  in  being 
brought  into  contact  with  the  spiritual  revelations  of  the  Bi 
ble. 

1.  To  look  first  to  the  heathen  use  of  the  term, — the  deri 
vation  and  primary  meaning  cannot  be  pronounced  absolutely 
certain;  yet  what  has  been  the  most  general,  continues  still 
to  be  the  most  approved  opinion — that  it  is  a  compound  of 
privative  a  and  tasty,  so  that,  if  applied  to  a  person  or  power, 
it  would  designate  what  makes  invisible,  if  to  a  place,  the  in 
visible  region.  We  may  the  rather  hold  this  to  be  the  correct 
etymology,  as  in  the  more  ancient  writers  the  iota  is  very  com 
monly  written  and  pronounced  as  a  constituent  part  of  the 
word;  and  aor^  may  consequently  be  regarded  as  an  abbre 
viation  of  alur^.  One  does  not  see  how  this  could  have  hap 
pened,  if  the  derivation  had  been  from  cioco  or  y/ioco^  to  re 
ceive.  In  the  elder  Greek  writers,  the  word  is  generally  used 
to  designate  a  person  or  power;  it  is  but  another  name  for 
Pluto,  Dis,  or  Orcus.  In  Homer  it  is  always  so  used ;  but  in 
later  writers  it  is  applied  sometimes  to  the  power,  and  some 
times  to  the  abode  or  region,  over  which  he  was  supposed  to 
preside.  And  as  people  felt  unwilling  (according  to  Plato) 
to  designate  the  Deity  by  the  dreaded  name  of  Hades,  pre 
ferring  that  rather  of  Pluto,  so  the  term  Hades  came  in  pro 
cess  of  time  to  be  generally  appropriated  to  the  region.  Nor 
can  there  be  any  doubt  that  this  region,  in  respect  to  locality, 
was  understood  to  occupy  a  relatively  lower  position  than  the 
earth — hence  the  Latin  designations,  inferi  and  inferna,  the 


316  IMPORT  AND  USE 

people  or  places  beneath  ground ;  and  that,  in  respect  to  its 
nature  and  design,  it  was  the  common  receptacle  of  the  de 
parted,  ndvraz  bftcoz  dvyToyz  'Aior^  oiyncu.  This  common 
receptacle,  however,  they  held  to  be  divided  into  two  distinct 
spheres — one  for  the  good  and  another  for  the  bad — Elysium 
and  Tartarus.  Delineating  the  two  paths,  which  at  a  certain 
point  led  off  to  the  different  habitations,  Yirgil  says,  JEn.  vi. 
540:— 

"  Hac  iter  Elysium  nobis:  et  laeva  malorum 
Exercet  poenas,  et  ad  impia  Tartara  naittit." 

But  notwithstanding  this  division,  and  the  possibility,  ac 
cording  to  it,  of  a  state  of  happiness  being  enjoyed  in  the 
nether  world,  the  notion  of  Hades  was  still  a  predominantly 
gloomy  and  forbidding  one  to  the  heathen  mind.  Pluto  and 
his  subordinates  were  always  imaged  under  a  grim  and  stern 
aspect;  and  the  whole  region  over  which  their  sway  extended 
looked  dull  and  mournful.  The  passage  of  souls  thither  was 
commonly  represented  as  a  transition  from  the  region  of  light 
and  life  to  the  mansions  of  darkness,  and  the  possession,  at 
the  most,  of  a  kind  of  shadowy,  semi-real  existence,  a  sort  of 
mid-way  condition  between  proper  life  and  death.  The  poets, 
who  partly  expressed  and  partly  also  formed  the  popular  be 
lief  upon  the  subject,  inclined  so  much  in  their  representations 
to  the  shady  side,  that  Plato  would  only  admit  them  into  his 
Republic,  if  the  passages  bearing  on  this  point  were  erased 
from  them ;  because,  filling  the  minds  of  men  with  such  un 
inviting  representations  of  the  state  after  death,  they  inevita 
bly  tended,  he  conceived,  to  unnerve  the  spirits  of  men,  and 
dispose  them  to  prefer  slavery  to  defeat  and  death  (Rep.  iii. 
1-4.)  This  dark  and  gloomy  portraiture  of  the  state  of  the 
departed  in  heathen  mythology  arose,  doubtless,  in  part  from 
the  want  of  any  definite  revelation  to  guide  and  elevate  men's 
views  regarding  the  future;  but  still  more,  from  a  want  of 
another  kind — the  want  of  any  proper  satisfaction  for  the 
guilt  of  sin,  such  as  should,  on  solid  grounds,  have  restored 
peace  to  the  conscience.  Their  imperfect  ablutions  and  sacri 
fices  were  felt  to  be  insufficient  for  so  great  an  end,  especially 
when  the  thought  of  future  retribution  hove  distinctly  in 


OF  HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  317 

view.  Yet,  uninviting  as  the  prospect  of  an  entrance  into 
Ilades  was,  even  for  the  better  portion  of  mankind,  it  was 
greatly  preferred  to  exclusion ;  and  the  classes  that  were  de 
nied  admission  for  a  time,  were  deemed  peculiarly  unhappy. 
These  were  the  unburied,  the  unripe  (such  as  had  been  carried 
off  at  an  immature  age,  hence  supposed  to  be  not  ready,)  and 
those  who  had  met  a  violent  death.  The  first  class  till  their 
funeral  rites  were  performed,  the  other  two  till  the  natural 
period  of  death  had  arrived,  were  doomed  to  flit  about  the 
outskirts  of  Hades.1  Itself  a  proof  of  the  superficialism  of 
heathen  mythology,  and  of  the  undue  regard  that  was  had  in 
it  to  merely  natural  considerations!  since  all  the  circum 
stances  which  were  supposed  to  exclude  from  the  proper 
receptacles  of  the  dead,  belonged  to  the  outward  and  fortui 
tous,  rather  than  to  the  moral.  But  whatever  may  be  thought 
of  such  imaginations,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  two  lead 
ing  points  already  noted — namely,  that  the  Ilades  of  ancient 
heathenism  was  believed  to  be  the  common  receptacle  of  de 
parted  souls,  and  that  it  was  understood  to  possess  a  compart 
ment  of  bliss  for  the  good,  and  a  compartment  of  retributive 
punishment  and  misery  for  the  bad. 

2.  Turning  now  to  the  territory  of  Scripture,  we  look  in 
the  first  instance  to  the  light  that  is  furnished  on  the  subject 
in  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  There  the  place  of 
departed  spirits  is  designated  by  the  Hebrew  name  of  Sheol; 
which  is  most  commonly,  and  I  believe  rightly,  derived  from 
>>*$?,  to  demand  or  ask:  So  called,  to  use  the  words  of  Mi- 
chaelis,  a  poscendo,  quod  non  desinat  postulare,  et  homines 
alios  post  alios  ad  se  trahere.  With  reference  to  this  primary 
import  of  the  term,  as  well  as  to  the  reality  indicated  by  it, 
it  is  said  in  Prov.  xxvii.  20,  "  Sheol  and  the  abyss  are  never 
satisfied,"  and  in  Hab.  ii.  5,  the  Chaldean  monarch  is  likened 
to  Sheol,  "because  he  gathereth  unto  him  all  nations,  and 
heapeth  unto  him  all  people."  Gesenius's  later  derivation,  as 
if  it  were  for  7ij,»$?  a  hollow,  then  a  hollow  arid  subterranean 
place,  seems  to  rest  on  no  solid  foundation.  But  nothing  of 

1  See  Tertullian  cle  Anima,  c.  56 ;  also  the  long  note  of  Pearson  on  the 
subject  under  Art.  V.  of  the  Creed,  note  L 

27* 


318  IMPORT  AND  USE 

importance  depends  on  the  etymology;  other  and  more  cer 
tain  sources  of  information  exist  as  to  the  notions  involved  in 
it.  The  Sheol  of  the  Hebrews  bore  so  much  of  a  common 
resemblance  to  the  Hades  of  the  Greeks,  that  in  the  Septua- 
gint  fuir^  is  the  word  commonly  employed  as  an  equivalent; 
and  in  the  latter  periods  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth  the  two 
words  were  viewed  as  of  substantially  like  import.  According 
also  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  contemplation,  there  was  a  com 
mon  receptacle  for  the  spirits  of  the  departed;  and  a  recep 
tacle  which  was  conceived  of  as  occupying,  in  relation  to  this 
world,  a  lower  sphere — under  ground.  Hence  they  spoke  of 
going  down  to  Sheol,  or  of  being  brought  up  again  from  it. 
Josephus,  when  describing  in  this  respect  the  belief  of  the 
Pharisees,  which  was,  undoubtedly,  the  common  belief  of  his 
countrymen,  says,  "They  believe  that  souls  have  an  immortal 
vigour  in  them,  and  that  under  the  earth  (UTTO  £0ovoc,)  there 
will  be  rewards  or  punishments,  according  as  they  have  lived 
virtuously  or  viciously  in  this  life;  that  the  latter  are  to  be 
detained  in  an  everlasting  prison,  but  that  the  former  shall 
have  power  to  revive  and  live  again,"  (Ant.  xviii,  1,  8.)  The 
language  of  earlier  times  perfectly  accords  with  these  views, 
so  far  as  it  refers  to  the  points  embraced  in  them.  Jacob,  for 
example,  speaks  of  being  brought  down  to  Sheol  with  sorrow, 
(Gen.  xlii.  38;)  and  David,  in  one  place,  (Ps.  cxxxix.  8,)  con 
templates  the  possibility  of  making  his  bed  in  Sheol,  and  in 
another,  (Ps.  xxx.,)  after  deliverance  from  the  sore  calamity 
which  had  enveloped  him  for  a  time  as  in  an  atmosphere  of 
death,  gives  thanks  to  God,  like  one  actually  restored  to  life, 
for  having  brought  his  soul  up  again  from  Sheol.  At  the 
same  time,  that  the  wicked  were  regarded  as  going  to  Sheol, 
is  so  often  expressed  in  Old  Testament  Scripture,  that  it  is 
almost  needless  to  produce  any  particular  examples  of  it. 
The  passage  alone  of  Isa.  xiv.,  which,  though  highly  figurative, 
is  certainly  based  on  the  existing  beliefs  of  the  Israelitish 
people,  is  conclusive  proof.  The  king  of  Babylon  is  there 
represented  as  thrown  from  his  lofty  elevation  by  the  judgment 
of  Heaven,  and  sent  as  an  humbled  captive  into  the  chambers 
of  Sheol,  the  inmates  of  which  appear  moved  with  wonder  at 


OF  HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  319 

the  thought  of  his  downfall,  and  raise  over  him  the  shout  of 
exultation.  Beyond  doubt,  therefore,  Sheol,  like  Hades,  was 
regarded  as  the  abode  after  death  alike  of  the  good  and  the 
bad.  And  the  conception  of  its  low,  deep,  subterranean 
position  is  not  only  implied  in  the  general  style  of  thought 
and  expression  upon  the  subject,  but  is  sometimes  also  very 
forcibly  exhibited; — As  when  in  Deuteronomy,  ch.  xxxii.  22, 
the  Lord  declares  that  a  fire  was  "kindled  in  his  anger,  which 
should  burn  to  the  lowest  Sheol;"  and  in  Job  xi.  7— 9, 
"Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  God?  canst  thou  find  out 
the  Almighty  unto  perfection?  It  is  high  as  heaven,  what 
canst  thou  do?  Deeper  than  Sheol,  what  canst  thou  know?" 
And  still  again  in  Amos  ix.  2,  "Though  they  dig  into  Sheol, 
thence  shall  My  hand  take  them ;  though  they  climb  up  into 
heaven,  thence  will  I  bring  them  down."  In  these  passages 
Sheol,  like  Hades,  is  manifestly  put  in  opposition  to  what  is 
elevated  in  height;  it  is  the  antithesis  of  heaven,  and  stands 
as  a  concrete  designation  of  the  lowest  depths. 

From  what  has  been  stated,  it  is  clear,  that  the  Sheol  of 
the  Hebrews  much  more  nearly  coincides  with  the  Hades  of 
the  Greeks,  than  with  either  our  hell  (in  its  now  universally 
received  acceptation1)  or  the  grave.  In  some  of  the  passages 
referred  to,  indeed,  the  meaning  would  not  materially  suffer 
by  one  or  other  of  these  terms  being  employed  as  an  equiva 
lent.  Substantially,  we  should  give  the  sense  of  Jacob's  de 
claration,  if  we  rendered,  "Ye  shall  bring  down  my  gray  hairs 
with  sorrow  to  the  grave;"  nor  should  any  violence  be  done 
to  the  general  import  of  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy,  if.  as  in 
the  authorized  version,  the  wrath  of  God  was  said  to  burn  to 
the  lowest  hell;  because  here  it  is  the  wicked  only  that  are 
contemplated,  and  these  as  pursued  by  Divine  vengeance  to 
the  farthest  bounds  of  their  possible  existence.  Yet,  the 
terms  in  either  case  are  not  precisely  equivalent,  and  hence 
are  not  convertible ;  we  could  not  substitute  hell  for  grave  in 
Jacob's  declaration,  or  grave  for  hell  in  the  passage  from  Deu- 

1  Originally,  it  had  much  the  same  meaning  as  Hades,  being  derived  from 
ihe  Saxon  helan,  to  cover,  and  denoting  simply  the  covered  or  hidden  space 
— the  invisible  regions. 


320  IMPORT  AND  USE 

teronomy.  With  this  general  agreement,  however,  between 
Hades  and  Sheol,  there  may  still  be  shades  of  difference  be 
tween  them,  and  such  as  involve  important  principles.  The 
term  Hades  certainly  came  nearer  to  Sheol  than  either  hell 
or  the  grave,  especially  in  these  two  respects,  that  both  alike 
were  viewed  as  the  common  receptacle  of  departed  souls,  and 
as  lying  far  under  ground:  In  two  other  points  also  there 
might  be  said  to  be  a  substantial  agreement.  First,  in  regard 
to  the  diverse  conditions  of  the  departed;  for,  though  in  what 
is  said  of  Sheol  we  do  not  find  by  any  means  such  a  distinct 
separation  into  the  two  regions  for  their  respective  classes  of 
occupants,  as  in  the  case  of  Hades  with  its  Elysium  and  Tar 
tarus,  yet  the  existence  of  such  a  separation  is  not  doubtfully 
indicated.  It  is  implied  in  the  representations  given  of  the 
doctrine  of  Divine  retribution,  as  reaching  beyond  the  boun 
daries  of  sense  and  time  into  the  realms  of  the  dead.  It  is 
again  implied  in  the  hope,  which  was  possessed  by  the  right 
eous  in  his  death — the  rooted  conviction,  that  he  was  safe  in 
the  keeping  of  the  all-present  and  omnipotent  Jehovah,  even 
when  appointed  to  find  his  bed  in  the  viewless  chambers  of 
Sheol; — a  very  different  condition  from  that  of  those,  who, 
like  the  godless  monarch  of  Babylon,  were  represented  as  cast 
down  thither  with  the  marks  upon  them  of  shame  and  dis 
honour.  Such  things  leave  no  room  to  doubt,  that  while  Sheol 
might  be  regarded  but  as  one  region,  it  was  known  to  possess 
quite  different  receptacles  for  those  received  within  its  gates, 
and  that  there  still,  there,  indeed,  pre-eminently,  it  should  be 
well  with  the  righteous  and  ill  with  the  wicked.  With  all 
this — and  here  lies  the  other  point  of  substantial  agreement 
with  the  Hades  of  heathendom — a  certain  degree  of  gloom 
and  repulsiveness  hung  around  the  region  even  to  the  eye  of 
the  believing  Israelite.  He  felt  alarmed  and  saddened  at  the 
thought  of  his  entrance  into  it — as  if  his  nature  must  there 
suffer  a  kind  of  collapse;  and  not  only  the  commoner  sympa 
thies  of  flesh  and  blood,  but  the  holiest  affections  also  of  grace, 
must  be  denied  the  exercise  they  delighted  in  on  earth.  In 
the  Book  of  Psalms  Sheol  is  spoken  of  as  the  land  of  forget- 
fulness,  and  of  silence,  where  no  celebration  is  made  of  God's 


OF  HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  821 

praise,  or  active  service  is  done  for  Him,  like  what  is  ever 
proceeding  on  earth.  David  asks  respecting  those  who  have 
entered  that  nether  world,  "Who  shall  give  Thee  thanks?" 
(Ps.  vi.  5.)  And  Hezekiah,  in  like  manner,  declares  "Sheol 
cannot  praise  Thee,  nor  death  extol  Thee.  The  living,  the 
living,  he  shall  praise  Thee,  as  I  do  this  day."  (Isa.  xxxviii. 
18.)  ' 

Were  expressions  of  this  nature  to  be  taken  absolutely,  they 
would  bespeak  even  a  darker  and  gloomier  view  of  Sheol,  on 
the  part  of  Old  Testament  believers,  than  was  held  by  the 
better  sort  of  heathens  respecting  the  Elysium  of  Hades.  But 
it  is  evident,  from  what  has  been  stated,  that  they  cannot  be 
so  taken.  ^If  the  retributive  justice  of  God  followed  men  into 
Sheol,  distinguishing  there  also  between  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked,  there  could  not  possibly,  with  either  class,  be  total 
silence  and  forgetfulness ;  the  soul  must  have  been  conceived 
capable  of  happiness  or  misery,  and  consequently  to  have  had 
continued  recollection  and  consciousness,  as  discerning  in  the 
elements  of  its  new  state  the  issues  of  that  which  it  had  left. 
The  ideal  scene,  too,  in  Isaiah,  of  the  Chaldean  monarch's  re 
ception  among  the  departed,  and  the  historical  representation 
of  Samuel's  reappearance  at  Endor  to  rebuke  Saul  and  pro 
claim  his  approaching  doom,  should  have  wanted  their  proper 
basis,  if  the  tenants  of  Sheol  had  been  supposed  to  be  bereft 
of  consciousness  and  power.  The  language,  which  seems  to 
betoken  such  a  complete  cessation  of  thought  and  energy, 
could  be  nothing  more  than  relative.  It  meant,  that,  as  com 
pared  with  the  present  life,  so  replete  with  busy,  and  in  many 
respects  pleasurable  activities,  existence  in  Sheol  presented  it 
self  to  the  apprehension  of  the  Hebrews,  as  an  obscure,  inac 
tive,  torpid  repose.  In  truth,  they  had  no  revelation  on  the 
subject;  and,  wiser  than  the  heathen,  they  stopped  where 
their  light  forsook  them ;  they  did  not  attempt  to  supply  the 
lack  of  supernal  illumination  by  silly  fables,  which  were  fitted 
only  to  deceive.  It  was  the  further  development  of  God's 
scheme  which  alone  could  relieve  the  gloom ;  and  waiting  for 
that,  they  rested  meanwhile  in  the  conviction — though  not 
without  many  recoils  of  feeling  and  faintings  of  heart — that 


IMPORT  AND  USE 

He  who  had  kept  and  blessed  them  through  the  troubles  of 
life,  would  not  leave  them  a  prey  to  evil  in  the  undiscovered 
regions  that  lay  beyond. 

Along,  however,  with  those  points  of  obvious  or  substantial 
agreement,  between  the  Sheol  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  Hades 
of  the  Greeks,  there  were  points — two  in  particular — of  actual 
diversity.  One  was,  that  Sheol  was  not,  in  the  estimation  of 
the  Hebrews,  a  final,  but  only  an  intermediate  state.  It  was 
the  soul's  place  of  rest,  and,  it  might  be,  for  aught  they  knew, 
of  absolute  quiescence,  during  its  state  of  separation  from  the 
body,  but  from  which  it  was  again  to  emerge,  when  the  time 
should  come  for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  prospect 
of  such  a  resurrection  was  cherished  from  the  very  first  by  the 
believing  people  of  God,  to  whom  the  promise  was  given  of  a 
reversion  of  the  evil  brought  in  by  sin,  and,  by  consequence, 
of  the  destruction  of  death,  in  which  that  evil  found  its  proper 
consummation.  So  that  every  true  believer  was  a  man  of 
hope — of  a  hope  that  penetrated  beyond  the  mansions  of 
Sheol;  his  final  resting-place,  he  knew,  was  not  to  be  there. 
And  when  the  Psalmist  spake  concerning  himself,  "  God  will 
redeem  my  soul  from  the  hand  (or  power)  of  Sheol,  for  He 
shall  receive  me,"  (Ps.  xlix.  15;)  or  the  prophet  Isaiah,  of 
the  righteous  generally,  "  Thy  dead  men  shall  live,  my  dead 
body  shall  arise;  awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  dust," 
(xxvi.  19;)  or  Hosea,  "I  will  ransom  them  from  the  power 
of  Sheol,  I  will  redeem  them  from  death :  0  death,  I  will  be 
thy  plagues;  0  Sheol,  I  will  be  thy  destruction,"  (xiii.  14;) 
or  Daniel,  "  Many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth 
shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and 
everlasting  contempt,"  (xii.  2:) — they  but  gave  varied  expres 
sion  to  that  hope,  which  lay  in  the  breast  of  every  pious  Is 
raelite — namely,  that  there  should  be  a  resurrection  of  the 
just  and  of  the  unjust — that  for  the  just,  at  least,  there  should 
be  a  release  from  Sheol,  with  its  unnatural  abridgments  of  life 
and  being,  that  they  might  enter  on  their  proper  heritage  of 
blessing. 

In  this  consisted  one  important  element  of  difference  be 
tween  Sheol  and  Hades;  for  the  heathen  idolater  could  see 


OF  HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  823 

nothing  beyond  Hades ;  its  bars  to  him  were  eternal ;  the 
thought  of  a  resurrection  was  alien  to  all  his  conceptions 'of 
the  possible  future.  And  closely  connected  with  that  was  this 
other,  that  Sheol  was  not  viewed  as  a  separate  realm,  like 
Hades,  withdrawn  from  the  primal  fountain  of  life,  and  sub 
ject  to  another  dominion  than  the  world  of  sense  and  time. 
With  the  heathen,  the  lord  of  the  lower  regions  was  the  rival 
of  the  King  of  earth  and  heaven;  the  two  domains  were  es 
sentially  antagonistic.  But  with  the  more  enlightened  He 
brew  there  was  no.  real  separation  between  the  two  ;  the  cham 
bers  of  Sheol  were  as  much  God's  as  the  habitations  of  men 
on  earth,  or  the  mansions  of  the  blest  in  glory ;  there,  as  well 
as  here,  the  one  living  Jehovah  was  believed  to  be  in  all, 
through  all,  and  over  all. 

Now,  it  is  impossible  but  that  these  two  leading  principles, 
associated  with  the  Hebrew  Sheol,  but  not  with  the  Grecian 
Hades,  must  have  materially  affected  the  views  currently  en 
tertained  upon  the  subject;  and  though  the  Hellenistic  Jews 
employed  Hades  as  the  nearest  equivalent  in  the  Greek  lan 
guage  to  Sheol,  it  must  yet  have  called  up  ideas  in  the  mind 
of  an  enlightened  Israelite,  which  found  no  place  in  the  bosom 
of  a  heathen.  The  word  was  a  different  thing  in  the  mouth 
of  the  one  from  what  it  was  in  the  mouth  of  the  other. 

8.  So  much,  then,  for  the  Old  Testament  usage  and  ideas; 
we  come  now  to  those  of  the  New  Testament.  Here  the  word 
Hades  is  of  comparatively  rare  occurrence ;  it  is  not  found  in 
more  than  eight  passages  altogether.  The  first  time  it  meets 
us  is  in  our  Lord's  denunciation  upon  Capernaum,  the  place 
where  He  had  usually  resided  during  the  time  of  His  active 
ministry  in  Galilee;  and  it  is  employed,  as  in  some  of  the 
passages  cited  from  the  Old  Testament,  merely  as  one  of  the 
terms  of  a  contrast: — "  And  thou,  Capernaum,  which  art  ex 
alted  unto  heaven,  shalt  be  brought  down  to  Hades"  (Matt. 
xi.  23) — i.e.,  from  the  most  towering  elevation  to  the  deepest 
debasement.  From  a  proverbial  use  of  this  description  no 
thing  very  definite  can  be  inferred  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
place;  the  reference  proceeds  simply  on  the  popular  appre 
hension  respecting  its  position  in  the  lowest  depths.  The  next 


324  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF 

use  of  the  term  by  our  Lord  is  also  of  a  somewhat  rhetorical 
character;  it  is  in  the  memorable  words  addressed  to  Simon 
Peter,  which  contained  the  declaration,  "And  on  this  rock  I 
will  build  My  Church,  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  pre 
vail  against  it"  (Matt.  xvi.  18.)  This  no  further  determines 
the  nature  of  Hades,  than  that  somehow  it  is  conceived  of  as 
standing  in  opposition  to  the  continued  existence  or  prosperity 
of  the  church;  so  that  the  ascendency  of  the  one  would  be 
the  defeat  or  overthrow  of  the  other.  Hades  is  referred  to  as 
a  realm  or  kingdom,  having,  like  earthly  kingdoms  in  the 
East,  seats  of  council  and  authority  at  its  gates,  where  deli 
berations  were  held,  and  measures  taken,  in  regard  to  all  that 
concerned  its  interests;  and  these,  the  Lord  affirms,  should 
never  prevail  against  His  cause  on  earth;  this  cause  should 
ever  maintain  its  ground.  But  on  another  occasion  still — 
the  only  occasion  besides  on  which  the  term  occurs  in  the  re 
corded  sayings  of  our  Lord — in  the  parable  of  the  rich  man 
and  Lazarus,  it  is  there  said  of  the  former,  that  "  in  Hades 
he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  in  torments."  And  it  cannot  but  be  re 
garded  as  a  noticeable  circumstance,  that  in  the  solitary  ex 
ample,  wherein  Hades  is  mentioned  by  our  Lord  explicitly  as 
a  receptacle  for  the  departed,  it  is  in  connexion  with  the 
wicked,  and  as  a  place  of  torment.  True,  no  doubt,  Lazarus 
also,  the  child  of  faith  and  the  heir  of  glory,  was  so  far  asso 
ciated  with  the  lost  worldling,  that  he  appears,  as  it  were, 
within  sight  and  hail  of  the  other;  but  still,  it  is  only  to  the 
compartment,  where  the  lost  had  their  portion,  that  the  name 
Hades  is  applied;  and  betwixt  that  locality  and  the  abodes 
of  the  blest  an  impassable  gulf  is  represented  as  being  fixed. 
Coupling  with  this  the  circumstance,  that  in  the  other  two 
cases  also,  in  which  the  term  Hades  was  employed  by  our 
Lord,  it  appears  in  a  kind  of  antithesis  to  His  cause  and  king 
dom,  one  can  scarcely  avoid  feeling  as  if  there  had  been  taken 
from  Hades  somewhat  of  that  common  aspect  and  relation  to 
the  whole  of  mankind,  which  in  more  ancient  times  was  ascribed 
to  Sheol.  The  rather  may  we  thus  conclude,  when  we  call  to 
remembrance  the  words  of  Christ  on  another  occasion ;  words 
which  exhibit  a  marked  contrast  to  those  spoken  of  the  rich 


OF  HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  325 

man  in  the  parable,  and  which,  from  the  emphatic  moment 
when  they  were  uttered,  might  be  said  to  designate  for  future 
time  the  receptacle  of  departed  saints.  It  was  on  the  cross, 
when  Jesus  said  to  the  penitent  malefactor,  "-To-day  shalt 
thou  be  with  Me  in  paradise,"  (Luke  xxiii.  43.)  Paradise! 
the  region,  not  of  gloom  and  forgetfulness,  but  of  beautiful 
and  blessed  life — the  primeval  home  and  heritage  of  man; 
and  so,  proclaiming  Jesus  to  be  that  Second  Man,  the  Lord 
from  heaven,  who  had  prevailed  to  recover  what  was  lost  by 
the  first.1 

Notwithstanding,  however,  this  studied  avoidance,  on  the 
part  of  our  Lord,  of  the  term  Hades  to  denote  the  place  of 
His  temporary  sojourn,  and  that  of  His  people,  between  death 
and  the  resurrection,  the  next  passage  in  which  we  meet  with 
the  word,  seems  to  make  Hades,  such  a  place  of  sojourn  for 
the  Redeemer  Himself.  It  is  in  Acts  ii.  27-31,  where,  after 
quoting  a  portion  of  the  16th  Psalm,  and  applying  it  to  Christ, 
the  Apostle  Peter  says,  that  David  spake  there  as  a  prophet — 
"spake  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  that  His  soul  was  not 
left  in  Hades,  neither  did  His  flesh  see  corruption."  By 
the  great  body  of  Christian  writers  this  passage  is  held  con 
clusive  as  to  the  fact  of  Christ's  soul  having  actually  been  in 
Hades;  since  it  could  not  have  been  represented  as  not  left 
there,  had  it  not  actually  been  there ;  and  by  many  of  them  it 
is  deemed  the  only  very  clear  and  decisive  text  on  the  point.2 
Yet  it  is  rather  pressing  the  language  too  far,  when  it  is  al 
leged  in  proof  of  Hades  being  the  proper  designation  of  the 
place,  whither  our  Lord's  soul  went  at  the  moment  of  death. 
For  it  is  an  Old  Testament  passage,  and  like  other  passages 

1  The  full  significance  of  our  Lord's  language  on  this  occasion  has  been 
sadly  marred  by  our  rabbinical  commentators  (Lightfoot,  Wetstein,  etc.,)  who 
have  thought  they  sufficiently  explained  it  by  adducing  passages  from  Jewish 
writings,  in  which  the  Garden  of  Eden  is  used  as  a  name  for  the  place  of  de 
parted  believers.  As  if  such  writings  were  entitled  to  rank  even  in  antiquity 
with  the  gospels!  Or,  as  if  the  kind  of  hap-hazard  employment  of  terms  by 
blind  Rabbis,  as  often  wrong  as  right,  when  referring  to  the  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom,  gave  the  key  to  Christ's  pregnant  and  select  diction !  But  see  at 
Part  L,  sec.  3,  p.  51,  sq. 

2  See  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  Burnet  or  Browne  on  the  39  Articles. 


326  IMPORT  AND  USE 

of  a  prophetic  nature,  which  pointed  to  New  Testament  times, 
it  naturally  spoke  of  the  future  under  the  form  and  image  of 
the  things  then  present  or  past.  It  should,  therefore,  be  un 
derstood  of  the  actual  event  in  Gospel  times  with  such  a  mea 
sure  of  qualification,  as  the  altered  circumstances  of  the  new 
dispensation  might  require.  And  if,  as  we  have  seen  reason 
to  believe,  the  language  of  our  Lord  Himself  gave  indication 
of  a  change  in  respect  to  Hades,  as  regards  the  souls  of  be 
lievers — if  in  His  discourses  he  carefully  distinguished  between 
Hades  and  the  receptacle  of  His  own  and  His  people's  disem 
bodied  spirits,  we  can  scarcely  be  warranted  in  pressing  the 
Old  Testament  passage  quoted  by  St.  Peter,  so  as  to  impose 
on  it  still  an  Old  Testament  sense.  But,  in  reality,  neither 
the  original  Hebrew,  nor  the  Septuagint  Greek,  which  is 
adopted  by  the  apostle,  gives  any  precise  indication  of  the 
place  where  our  Lord's  spirit  sojourned;  they  do  not  define 
so  closely,  as  is  supposed,  his  relation  to  Hades.  The  words 
in  the  Greek,  which  represent  quite  exactly  the  sense  of  the 
Hebrew,  are,  o*j%  IfxaTatetyeez  xty  <j)uy$v  p-oo  e/c  7<%y»  Thou 
wilt  not  relinquish,  or  abandon,  my  soul  to  Hades — wilt  not 
surrender  it  as  a  helpless  prey  to  that  hostile  power,  or  un 
welcome  abode.  It  might,  indeed,  mean,  that  the  soul  was 
to  be  allowed  to  enter  there,  though  not  to  be  shut  up  for  a 
continuance;  but  it  might  also,  and  even  more  naturally,  inti 
mate  that  the  soul  should  not  properly  fall  under  the  dominion 
of  Hades.  The  expression  is  general  as  regards  the  matter 
of  relationship;  Hades  is  simply  eyed  as  the  antagonistic 
power,  the  hostile  quarter,  against  which  security  was  to  be 
provided,  or  from  which  deliverance  was  to  be  granted. 

Another  passage  commonly  referred  to  in  the  same  connex 
ion,  were  it  justly  so  employed,  might  also  be  treated  as  de 
riving  its  impress  from  Old  Testament  times.  Having  quoted 
Isa.  xxv.  8,  "He  will  swallow  up  death  in  victory,"  St.  Paul 
breaks  out  into  the  fervid  exclamation,  "0  death,  where  is 
thy  sting?  0  Hades,  where  is  thy  victory?"  (1  Cor.  xv.  55.) 
Such  is  the  reading  of  the  received  text;  but  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Qa^ars,  0  death,  should  be  in  this  clause,  as  well 
as  the  preceding  one.  So  that  the  passage  does  not  come  into 


HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  327 

consideration  here;  and  the  English  version,  which  merely 
substitutes  grave  in  the  second  clause  for  death  in  the  first,  is 
really  more  correct  than  the  original  it  professed  to  follow. 
Grave  answers  more  nearly  to  OduaTS  than  it  should  have  done 

C/  (^ 

to  (w~r}. 

Passing  this,  then,  as  not  applicable,  the  only  remaining 
passages,  in  which  Hades  occurs,  are  in  the  Book  of  Revela 
tion.  There  it  is  found  four  times.  In  ch.  i.  18,  the  Lord 
re-assures  John,  who  had  fallen  at  His  feet  as  dead,  by  saying, 
"Fear  not:  I  am  the  first  and  the  last;  He  that  liveth  and 
was  dead ;  and,  behold,  I  am  alive  for  evermore ;  Amen,  and 
have  the  keys  of  death  and  of  Hades."  The  second  is  in  the 
description  of  the  rider  on  the  pale  horse,  in  ch.  vi.  8,  whose 
name  was  Death,  and  who  was  followed  by  Hades,  slaying  on 
every  hand  with  sword  and  pestilence.  The  two  others  occur 
in  successive  verses,  at  ch.  xx.  13, 14,  where,  amid  the  changes 
that  usher  in  the  final  condition  of  things,  it  is  said,  "And 
the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  that  are  in  it,  and  death  and  Hades 
gave  up  the  dead  that  are  in  them,  and  each  were  judged 
according  to  their  works.  And  Death  and  Hades  were  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire,  which  is  the  second  death."  In  these 
representations  it  were  too  much,  perhaps,  to  affirm  with  some, 
that  Hades  is  necessarily  restricted  to  the  place  of  torment, 
the  temporary  prison-house  of  the  lost.  For,  when  Christ 
speaks  of  having  the  keys  of  death  and  of  Hades,  He  might 
refer  to  the  invisible  world  generally;  He  might  intend  to 
comfort  the  Apocalyptist  with  the  assurance,  that  He,  who 
then  appeared  to  him  in  glory,  had  supreme  control  over  the 
mansions  of  life  and  death,  and  that  excepting  under  His  di 
rection  no  one  could  be  sent  into  the  nether  world  from  the 
scenes  and  habitations  of  the  living.  At  the  same  time,  when 
the  connexion  of  the  words  is  taken  into  account — when  it  is 
remembered  that  John,  together  with  the  church  he  repre 
sented,  was  then  threatened  with  destruction  by  a  powerful 
adversary,  and  that  he  felt  at  the  moment  on  the  point  of 
dissolution,  the  conviction  forces  itself  on  our  minds,  that  there 
also  death  and  Hades  are  chiefly  contemplated  as  evils — ob 
jects  shrunk  from  and  dreaded,  on  account  of  their  connexion 


328  IMPORT  AND  USE 

•with  sin,  and  from  which  exemption  was  to  be  sought  and 
obtained  in  Christ.  That  such  is  the  aspect  in  which  death 
and  Hades  are  presented  in  ch.  vi.  8,  where  the  one  follows 
the  other  in  the  work  of  carnage  and  desolation,  admits  of 
no  doubt;  for  the  work  given  them  to  do  was  one  emphatically 
of  judgment,  to  take  effect  on  the  adversaries  of  God.  The 
same  reference  to  the  wicked,  and  to  the  consequences  re 
sulting  from  their  misdeeds,  if  less  obvious  in  the  remaining 
passage  of  Revelation,  is  scarcely  less  certain.  For,  while 
the  sea  is.  spoken  of,  along  with  death  and  Hades,  as  giving 
up  the  dead  tbat  were  in  it,  and  of  all  the  dead,  so  given  up, 
being  judged  out  of  the  books  that  were  written  in  them  ac 
cording  to  their  works,  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten,  that  in  the 
Apocalypse  sea  is  the  usual  symbol  of  the  world,  in  its  sin- 
heaving,  agitated,  and  troubled  state — the  world  as  opposed 
to  the  peaceful  and  blessed  kingdom  of  Christ;  and  in  such  a 
case  the  books  are  most  naturally  regarded  as  the  ideal  re 
cords  of  human  guilt  and  depravity.  I  am  inclined,  there 
fore,  to  the  opinion,  that  the  souls  here  represented  as  coming 
out  of  the  sea,  death,  and  Hades,  and  being  judged  according 
to  the  things  written  in  the  books,  are  the  non-elect  portion 
of  mankind — all,  whose  names  were  not  found  in  the  book  of 
life.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  what  is  said  immediately  after, 
that  death  and  Hades  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire ;  for  what 
reason  could  there  have  been  for  such  an  utter  perdition,  if 
Hades  included  in  its  domain  the  paradise  to  which  Christ 
went  with  the  penitent  malefactor?  Could  the  realms  of  bliss 
and  wo,  life  and  destruction,  be  so  indiscriminately  con 
founded  together?  Manifestly  a  Hades,  which  was  to  find 
its  outgoing  in  the  devouring  fire  of  Heaven's  wrath,  was  a 
very  different  region  from  that,  in  which  our  Lord  tasted  the 
sweets  of  paradise,  or  even  the  lap  of  Abraham's  bosom, 
wherein  a  pious  Lazarus  is  said  to  have  reaped  his  reversion 
of  comfort  from  the  sorrows  of  an  afllicted  life. 

On  the  whole,  there  seems  ample  ground  for  maintaining 
that  a  marked  difference  lies  between  the  use  of  Hades  in  the 
New  Testament  and  of  Sheol  in  the  Old.  Sheol  is  plainly 
and  uniformly  represented  as  the  common  receptacle  of  the 


OF  HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  329 

good  and  the  bad;  for  the  one  class,  indeed,  containing  the 
elements  of  a  very  different  portion  from  what  awaited  the 
other;  yet  even  for  the  good  wearing  an  aspect  somewhat 
cheerless  and  uninviting.     Hades,  in  New  Testament  Scrip 
ture,  is  not  once  explicitly  employed  as  a  designation  for  the 
common  region  of  departed  spirits ;  when  speaking  of  the  inter 
mediate  state  for  the  good,  our  Lord  carefully  abstained  from 
associating  it  with  the  mention  of  Hades ;  and  both  as  referred 
to  by  Him,  and  as  personified  in  the  Book  of  Revelation, 
Hades  is  placed  in  a  kind  of  antagonistic  relation  to  the  in 
terests    of   His   kingdom — is    even    viewed    as    standing   in 
close  affinity  with  death,  and  destined  to  share  in  its  final  ex 
tinction.     Not,  however,  that  we  are  therefore  warranted  to 
deny  the  existence  of  an  intermediate  state  for  the  souls  of 
believers,  differing  in  place  or  character  from  their  ultimate 
destination ;  or  that  it  must  on  no  account  be  identified  with 
Hades.     No;  but  simply  that  this  is  no  longer  the  fitting  epi 
thet  to  apply  to  the  temporary  receptacle  of  departed  saints ; 
and  we  cannot  but  regard  it  as  unhappy,  and  tending  to  con 
vey  a  partially  wrong  impression  respecting  Christ,  that  the 
article  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  should  have  taken  the  form  of 
representing  His  disembodied  soul  as  descending  into  Hades. 
He  Himself  introduced  a  change  in  the  phraseology  respect 
ing  the  state  of  the  departed,  such  as  appears  to  have  be 
tokened  a  corresponding  change  in  the  reality.     Assuredly, 
by  the  incarnation  and  work  of  Christ,  the  position  of  the 
Church  on  earth  was  mightily  elevated;  and  it  is  but  natural 
to  infer,  that  a  corresponding  elevation  extended    to  those 
members  of  the   Church  who  had  already  passed,  or  might 
henceforth  pass,  within  the  veil ;  that  a  fresh  lustre  was  shed 
over  their  state  and  enjoyments  by  the  entrance  of  Christ,  as 
the  triumphant  Redeemer,  into  the  world  of  spirits;  and  that 
for  them  now  the  old    Hades,  with  its  grim  and    cheerless 
aspect,  was  to  be  accounted  gone,  supplanted  by  the  happy 
mansions  in  the  Father's  house,  which  Christ  opened  to  their 
view.     Hence  also,  instead  of  shrinking  from  the  immediate 
future,  as  from  the  grasp  of  an  enemy,  the  children  of  faith 
and  hope  should  rather  look  to  it  as  a  provisional  paradise, 

28* 


380  IMPORT  AXD  USE 

and  confidently  anticipate  in  its  realms  of  light  and  glory  a 
higher  satisfaction  than  they  can  ever  experience  in  the  flesh. 
In  this  statement,  however,  nothing  is  to  be  understood  as 
affirmed  in  respect  to  the  locality  assigned  for  the  spirits  of 
the  departed — as  if  it  had  been  removed  to  another  sphere  by 
the  agency  of  Christ,  and  a  new  and  higher  region  had  taken 
the  place  of  the  one  originally  appointed.  This  was  a  very 
common  view  among  the  later  Fathers — those  who  lived  subse 
quently  to  the  fifth  century — and  became  at  length  the  received 
opinion  of  the  Church.  It  was  supposed  that,  up  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  His  descent  into  Hades,  the  souls  of  the 
righteous  were  kept  in  what  was  called  Limbus  Patrum — not 
absolutely  hell,  but  a  sort  of  porch  or  antechamber  in  its  out 
skirts;  and  that  Christ,  after  having  finished  the  work  of  re 
conciliation,  went  thither  to  deliver  them  from  it,  and  set 
them  in  the  heavenly  places.  Bede  expresses  this  to  be  the 
general  faith  of  the  Church  in  his  day  j1  although  many  of  the 
greatest  authorities  before  him  had  opposed  it,  both  because 
it  seemed  to  bespeak  the  existence  of  too  much  evil  in  the  con 
dition  of  ancient  believers  after  death,  and  also  to  ascribe  too 
great  a  change  to  the  personal  descent  of  Christ.  The  notion 
undoubtedly  rested  on  fanciful  grounds,  and  had  various  errors, 
of  a  collateral  kind,  associated  with  it.  Its  propounders  and 
advocates  too  much  forgot  that  the  language  used  of  this  pro 
vince  of  the  invisible  world,  as  well  as  others,  is  to  a  large 
extent  relative,  and,  as  regards  circumstantial  matters,  was 
never  meant  to  impart  precise  and  definite  information.  When 
represented  as  a  lower  region,  as  stretching  away  even  into 
the  profoundest  depths,  it  was,  doubtless,  the  world  of  sense 
that  supplied  the  form  of  the  representation.  The  body,  at 
death,  goes  down  into  the  earth;  and  it  became  natural  to 
think  and  speak  of  the  soul  as  following  it  in  this  downward 
direction,  and  finding  its  proper  abode  in  the  shades  below. 

1  Catliolica  fides  habet,  quia  dcsccndens  ad  Inferna  Dominus  non  incredu- 
los  inde,  scd  fideles  lantummodo  suos  cducens,  ad  celestia  sccum  regna  per- 
duxerit.  So  also  Isidore  llispalensis,  Sentent.  L.  I.  c.  JO,  Idco  Dominus  in 
Inferno  descendit,  ut  his,  qui  ab  eo  non  poenalitcr  detinebantur,  viam  aperiret 
revertendi  ad  coclos.  See  other  authorities  in  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  Art.  V. 


OF  HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  331 

But  this  no  more  determined  the  locality,  than  our  concep 
tion  of  heaven  as  a  higher  region  necessitates  its  position  over 
our  heads;  which,  indeed, -would  require  it  to  shift  perpetually 
•with  the  seasons  of  the  year,  and  with  the  revolutions  of  day 
and  night.  Hence  it  is  ridiculous  to  say  with  Horsley,  as  if 
such  language  aimed  at  philosophical  precision,  "The  sacred 
writers  of  the  Old  Testament  speak  of  a  common  mansion  in 
the  inner  parts  of  the  earth;  and  we  find  the  same  opinion  so 
general  among  the  heathen  writers  of  antiquity,  that  it  is  more 
probable  that  it  had  its  rise  in  the  earliest  patriarchal  revela 
tions,  than  in  the  imaginations  of  man,  or  in  poetical  fiction."1 
Did  not  the  sacred  writers  as  well,  though  less  frequently,  also 
speak  of  the  spirit  of  a  man  going  upwards,  while  that  of  a 
beast  went  downwards — of  God  taking  the  most  eminent  saints 
to  Himself,  of  their  being  made  to  see  the  path  of  life,  and 
dwelling  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  for  ever?2  In  speaking  of 
what  pertains  to  the  soul  after  death,  we  necessarily  speak 
under  a  veil;  the  discourse  we  make  must  fashion  itself  after 
the  appearances,  rather  than  the  realities  of  things;  and  we 
wander  into  a  wrong  path  whenever  we  attempt  to  turn  the 
language  so  employed  into  a  delineation  of  exact  bounds  and 
definite  landmarks.  "What  is  written  of  departed  believers  is 
intended  only  to  give  us  some  idea  of  their  state,  but  not  of 
their  local  habitation ;  and  the  comparison  of  the  later,  with 
the  earlier  revelations,  as  already  stated,  warrants  the  belief, 
that  with  the  progress  of  the  scheme  of  God,  and  especially 
with  its  grand  development  in  the  person  of  Christ,  that  state 
did  also  partake  of  some  kind  of  progression,  or  experience 
some  rise,  though  we  want  the  means  for  describing  wherein 
precisely  it  consisted. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add,  that  the  same  qualifications 
attach  to  what  is  sometimes  indicated  as  to  the  relative  near 
ness  of  the  two  regions  appropriated  respectively  to  the  saved 
and  the  lost  in  the  separate  state.  An  actual  nearness  is 
inconceivable,  if  the  better  portion  are  really  to  exist  in  a 
state  of  blissful  consciousness ;  for  what  room  could  there  be 

1  Sermon  on  1  Fet.  iii.  18-20. 

2  Gen.  v.  2-1;  Eccl.  iii.  21,  xii.  7;  Fs.  xyi.  11,  xxiii.  6. 


332  IMPOUT  AND  USE  OF 

for  an  Elysium  of  joy,  with  the  existence  of  such  a  mass  of 
wretchedness  perpetually  pressing  on  their  view?  The  scene 
of  the  rich  man's  cognizance  of  and  interview  with  Lazarus 
can  be  nothing  more  than  a  cover  to  hring  out  the  elements 
of  remorse  and  agony,  that  torment  the  bosom  of  the  lost. 
So  far,  disembodied  spirits  might  be  viewed  as  occupying  a 
common  territory,  that  they  are  alike  tenants  of  a  region 
physically  suited  to  such  spirits,  and  a  region  not  yet  parted 
into  the  final  destinations  of  heaven  and  hell.  But  nearer 
determinations  are  impracticable,  and  the  attempt  to  make 
them  is  to  enter  into  profitless  and  haply  misleading  specula 
tions. 

i  4.  The  preceding  remarks  have  touched  upon  every  thing 
that  calls  for  consideration  as  regards  the  import  and  applica 
tion  of  the  term  Hades  in  Scripture.  The  doctrine  of  our 
Lord's  temporary  withdrawal  into  the  world  of  spirits,  its  his 
torical  reality,  the  relation  it  bears  to  the  experience  of  His 
people,  and  the  results  to  which  it  may  be  applied  in  respect 
to  the  constitution  of  His  person  and  the  completeness  of  His 
work, — all  this  properly  belongs  to  another  department  of 
theological  inquiry.  Or,  if  treated  exegetically,  it  would  be 
more  fitly  discussed  in  connexion  with  a  few  texts,  in  which 
the  term  Hades  does  not  occur.  One  of  these  is  the  appli 
cation  made  in  Eph.  iv.  9,  of  an  Old  Testament  passage,  in 
which  the  Lord  is.represented  as  ascending  up  on  high,  lead 
ing  captivity  captive;  and  on  which  the  apostle  remarks, 
"Now  that  He  ascended,  what  is  it  but  that  He  also  descended 
first  into  the  lower  parts  (ra  xardtrepa)  of  the  earth?"  The 
Fathers,  undoubtedly,  made  frequent  use  of  this  passage  in 
establishing  the  descent  of  Christ  into  Hades,  and  they  have 
also  been  followed  by  many  in  modern  times.  But  this,  as 
Bishop  Pearson  long  ago  remarked,  and  for  stronger  reasons 
than  he  alleged,  is  a  very  questionable  interpretation;  for  the 
contrast  marked  in  the  apostle's  statement  is  not,  betwixt  one 
part  of  the  earth  and  another,  but  rather  betwixt  earth  as  the 
lower  region,  and  heaven  as  the  higher.  The  one  is  brought 
into  view  simply  as  expressive  of  His  humiliation,  preceding 
and  preparing  for  the  exaltation,  announced  in  the  other; 


OF  HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  383 

and  to  understand  the  words  of  a  farther  descent  into  the 
bowels  of  the  earth,  would  not  only  be  to  press  them  to  a 
sense  which  cannot  fairly  be  regarded  as  before  the  mind  of 
the  writer  at  the  time,  but  also  to  make  them  include  a  por 
tion  of  our  Lord's  history,  yea,  specially  to  single  out  that, 
as  the  distinctive  mark  of  his  humiliation,  which  does  not 
strictly  belong  to  it.  This  will  appear  from  what  follows  in 
connexion  with  another  text — the  one  that  chiefly  bears  on 
the  point  under  consideration — 1  Pet.  iii.  18—20,  in  which  the 
apostle  points  to  the  sequence  and  result  of  Christ's  sufferings 
in  the  flesh.  He  suffered  once,  says  Peter,  for  sins,  "the  just 
for  the  unjust,  that  He  might  bring  us  unto  God,  being  put  to 
death,  indeed,  in  flesh,  but  quickened  in  spirit,  in  which  also 
he  went  and  preached,  (or  made  proclamation,)  to  the  spirits 
in  prison,  that  sometime  were  disobedient  in  the  days  of 
Noah,"  etc.  (d-avarcodsl^  t&v  aapxl,  £M07ror/]Osc<;  ds  xvsvfjiaTe, 
ev  oj  y.al  TO?Z  sv  <pi>Aaxfj  Truzu/jtawy  xopzudsit;  Ixypussv,  drrscOij- 
GU.G'W  Trore,  ore  dne^edl^STO  57  rorj  6sou  [j.axpodu<j.ia,  x.  r.  ^.) 

This  is,  certainly,  one  of  the  most  remarkable,  and,  if  iso 
lated  from  the  context,  one  of  the  most  obscure  passages  of 
New  Testament  Scripture — bringing  in  so  abruptly,  and  with 
such  rapidity  passing  over,  some  of  the  more  remote  and  pe 
culiar  points  in  the  Divine  economy.  The  greatest  theologians 
have  not  only  differed  from  each  other  in  their  views  respect 
ing  it,  but  also  differed  from  themselves  at  one  period  as 
compared  with  another;  of  which  instances  may  be  found  in 
Augustin,  Luther,  and  Calvin.  It  would  be  out  of  place  here, 
however,  to  give  a  history  of  opinions  on  the  subject;  they 
may  be  seen,  for  example,  in  Steiger's  Commentary,  (Biblical 
Cabinet,)  and  in  part,  also,  in  Pearson's  Notes  under  Art.V. 
It  will  here  be  enough  to  indicate  a  few  guiding  principles  and 
textual  explanations,  which  it  is  hoped  may  serve  to  show, 
that  when  contemplated  in  the  proper  light,  the  passage  is 
neither  inexplicable  in  meaning,  nor  in  the  least  at  variance 
with  the  general  teaching  of  Scripture. 

First,  then,  it  must  be  held  as  fixed  and  certain,  that  our 
Lord's  visit  to  the  world  of  departed  spirits,  between  His 
death  and  His  resurrection,  was  an  historical  reality,  whatever 


334  IMPORT  AND  USE 

He  might  have  felt  or  done  when  there.  His  departed  soul 
did  not  ascend  to  the  proper  heaven  of  glory,  as  He  expressly 
declared,  till  after  the  resurrection ;  while  yet  it  went,  accord 
ing  to  another  declaration,  to  a  region  so  blissful,  that  it  could 
be  called  by  the  name  of  paradise.  One  alternative  alone 
remains,  that  His  spirit  went  to  the  company  of  those  who 
are  waiting  in  hope  of  a  better  resurrection. 

Secondly,  Christ's  presence  and  operations  in  that  world  of 
spirits  must  be  held  to  have  taken  place  in  free  and  blessed 
agency;  they  are  to  be  associated,  not  with  the  passive,  but 
with  the  active  part  of  His  career.  His  sufferings  were  at 
an  end  when  He  expired  upon  the  cross;  for  then  the  curse 
was  exhausted,  and,  with  that,  the  ground  of  His  appointment 
to  evil  finally  removed — whence  the  change  explains  itself  of 
the  difference  that  forthwith  appeared  in  the  Divine  procedure 
toward  Him.  Shame  and  contumely  now  gave  place  to  ho 
nour:  not  a  bone  of  Him  was  allowed  to  be  broken;  He  was 
numbered  no  longer  with  the  vile  and  worthless,  but  with  the 
rich  and  honourable,  and  by  these,  after  being  wrapped  in 
spices,  He  was  committed  to  a  tomb,  where  no  man  had  lain: 
all,  so  many  streaks  of  that  dawn  which  was  to  issue  in  the 
glory  of  the  resurrection-morn.  Whatever,  therefore,  was 
done  by  the  soul  of  Christ  subsequent  to  His  death,  must 
have  been  in  free  and  blessed  agency;  and  it  were  abhorrent 
to  all  right  notions  of  the  truth  respecting  Him,  to  suppose, 
as  some  have  done,  that  His  sufferings  were  prolonged  in  the 
world  of  spirits,  and  that  He  there  for  a  time  had  experience 
of  the  agonies  of  the  lost.  This  were  in  effect  to  say,  that 
His  work  of  reconciliation  on  the  cross  was  not  complete, — 
that  the  sacrifice  then  paid  to  Divine  justice  was  not  accepted 
of  the  Father.  Even  the  modified  view  of  Bishop  Pearson 
must  be  rejected,  that  "as  Christ  died  in  the  similitude  of  a 
sinner,  His  soul  went  to  the  place  where  the  souls  of  men  are 
kept  who  die  for  their  sins,  and  so  did  wholly  undergo  the  law 
of  death;"  for,  in  that  case,  a  certain  measure  of  penalty  and 
satisfaction  should  still  have  been  implied  in  the  transaction. 
The  language  of  St.  Peter  in  the  passage  more  immediately 
before  us  gives  no  countenance  to  such  an  idea,  nor  admits  it 


HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  335 

under  any  modification ;  for  he  represents  Christ's  spirit  as 
being  vivified,  or  quickened — starting  into  fresh  life  and 
energy  of  action,  from  the  moment  that  in  flesh  He  underwent 
the  stroke  of  death,  and,  as  so  invigorated,  going" forth  to 
preach.1  In  short,  the  culminating  point  of  His  humiliation 
and  suffering  was  His  death  upon  the  cross,  (as  already  pre 
figured  in  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices,)2  and  from  that  point, 
both  in  respect  to  soul  and  body,  the  process  of  exaltation, 
strictly  speaking,  began. 

Thirdly,  In  regard  to  the  more  specific  points — why  the 
Apostle  Peter  should  have  made  such  particular  mention  of 
this  agency  of  Christ's  disembodied  spirit,  why  he  should  have 
coupled  it  only  with  the  spirits  of  those  who  had  perished  in 
the  flood,  and  what  may  have  been  the  nature  and  intent  of 
his  preaching  to  them: — for  all  this  we  must  look  to  the  con 
nexion.  Now,  it  must  be  carefully  remembered  (for  chiefly 
by  overlooking  this  have  commentators  gone  so  much  into  the 

1  In  this  explanation,  it  will  be  observed,  the  ZuortoiqOsis  rtvEvpcrtt   is 
taken  to  refer  to  the  spiritual  part  of  Christ's  human  nature,  precisely  as 
the  Oavortufais  aapxt,  to  His  corporeal  part;  for  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that 
this  is  the  natural,  and,  indeed,  the  only  grammatical  mode  of  interpreting 
them.    As  Flacius  long  ago  remarked,  "The  antithesis  clearly  shows,  that 
He  is  said  to  have  been  put  to  death  in  one  part  of  Him,  or  in  one  manner 
of  life,  but  vivified  in  another."     In  like  manner  Horsley,  ''If  the  word 
flesh  denote,  as  it  most  evidently  does,  the  part  in  which  death  took  effect 
upon  Him,  spirit  must  denote  the  part  in  which  life  was  preserved  in  Him, 
i.  e.,  His  own  soul."     Perfectly  right  thus  far,  though  scarcely  right  when 
he  adds,  that  "the  word  quickened  is  often  applied  to  signify,  not  the  re 
suscitation  of  life  extinguished,  but  the  preservation  and  continuance  of 
life  subsisting;"  no,  not  preservation  and  continuance  simply,  but  rather 
freshened  energy  and  revived  action.     The  interpretations,  which  under 
stand  by  spirit  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  regard  the  preaching  spoken  of  as 
either  the  preaching  of  Noah  through  the  Spirit,  to  the  antediluvians,  or 
that  of  the  apostles  to  the  wicked  around  them,  hence  fall  of  themselves; 
they  are  but  ingenious  shifts  resorted  to  for  the  sake  of  getting  over  a  dif 
ficulty,  but  twisting  the  passage  into  an  unnatural  sense.     Giving  to  the 
words  TtopsvOei?  txrtpv%ev   their  legitimate  import,  they  must   mean,   that 
Christ  went  away  and  preached — as  a  spirit  to  spirits.     And  the  spirits 
being  described  as  having  been  sometime,  or  formerly  disobedient,  also 
plainly  implies,  that  the  period  of  disobedience  was  a  prior  one  to  that  to 
which  the  preaching  belonged. 

2  See  Typology  of  Scripture,  vol.  ii.  p.  347. 


336  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF 

wrong  track,)  that  the  apostle  is  not  discoursing  of  these  topics 
doetrinally ;  they  are  referred  to  merely  as  matters  of  fact, 
which  had  a  practical  bearing  on  the  great  moral  truths  that 
were  the'  more  immediate  subject  of  discourse.  What  were 
these?  They  were,  that  Christians  should  seek  to  avoid  suf 
fering  by  maintaining  a  good  conscience;  but  that  if  they 
should  still,  and  perhaps  on  this  very  account,  be  called  to 
suffer,  it  was  greatly  better  to  do  so  for  well-doing,  than  for 
ill-doing.  Then,  in  confirmation  of  this  complex  truth,  he 
points  to  a  twofold  illustration.  In  the  first  instance,  he  fixes 
attention  on  Christ  as  having  suffered,  indeed,  the  just  for  the 
unjust — suffered  as  the  Righteous  One,  but  only  once  suffered; 
and  on  that  (the  ar.az  z-adsv)  the  special  stress  is  here  to  be 
laid;  it  was,  so  to  speak,  but  a  momentary  infliction  of  evil, 
however  awful  in  its  nature  while  it  lasted;  still,  but  once 
borne,  and  never  to  be  repeated,  because  borne  in  the  cause 
of  righteousness.  Not  only  so,  but  it  carried  along  with  it 
infinite  recompenses  of  good — for  sinful  men,  bringing  them 
to  God;  and  for  "Christ  Himself,  limiting  the  reign  of  death 
to  a  short-lived  dominion  over  the  body,  while  the  soul,  light 
ened  and  relieved,  inspired  with  the  energy  of  immortal  life, 
went  into  the  invisible  regions,  and,  with  buoyant  freedom, 
moved  among  the  spirits  of  the  departed.  How  widely  diffe 
rent  from  that  mighty  class  of  sufferers! — the  most  striking 
examples  in  the  world's  history  of  the  reverse  of  what  appeared 
in  Christ — the  last  race  of  antediluvians,  who  suffered,  not  for 
well-doing,  but  for  ill-doing',  and  suffered,  not  once  merely  in 
the  flood,  that  swept  them  away  from  their  earthly  habitations, 
but  even  now,  after  so  long  a  time,  when  the  work  on  the 
cross  was  finished — still  pent  up  as  in  a  prison-house  of  doom, 
where  they  could  be  only  haunted  by  memories  of  past  crime, 
and  with  forebodings  of  eternal  retribution  !  What  a  contrast ! 
How  should  the  thought  of  it  persuade  us  to  suffering  for  well 
doing,  rather  than  for  evil-doing!  And  for  those  lost  ones 
themselves,  Christ's  spirit,  now  released  from  suffering,  fresh 
with  the  dew  of  its  dawning  immortality,  preached;  preached 
by  its  very  entrance  into  the  paradise  of  glory.  For  even 
this,  seen  from  afar,  must  have  been  to  them  like  the  appear- 


HADES  IN  SCRIPTURE.  337 

ance  of  a  second  Noah,  "the  preacher  of  righteousness;"  since 
it  proclaimed — proclaimed  more  emphatically  than  Noah  ever 
did— the  final  establishment  of  God's  righteousness,  and  a  sure 
heritage  of  life  and  blessing  for  those,  but  for  those  only,  who 
were  ready  to  hazard  all  for  its  sake.  Such,  doubtless,  was 
the  kind  of  preaching  meant ;  it  is  that  alone  which  the  case 
admits  of — whether,  as  to  its  formal  character,  it  may  have 
consisted  in  the  simple  presentation  of  the  Spirit  of.  Christ 
among  the  spirits  of  the  blessed,  or  may  have  included  some 
more  special  and  direct  intercourse  with  the  imprisoned  hosts 
of  antediluvian  time.  In  either  case  it  was  to  them  like  the 
renewal,  in  a  higher  form,  of  the  old  preaching  of  righteous 
ness;  for  what  the  one  had  provisionally  announced,  the  other 
finally  confirmed  and  sealed;  yea,  was  itself  the  radiant  proof 
of  an  eternal  distinction  between  those,  in  whom  suffering 
triumphs  because  of  sin,  and  those  who  through  righteousness 
triumph  over  suffering.1 

Viewed  thus,  the  whole  passage  hangs  consistently  together ; 
one  part  throws  light  upon  another;  and  the  agency  ascribed 
to  Christ  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  all  that  is  elsewhere  writ 
ten,  both  of  His  own  mediatorial  work,  and  of  the  condition 
of  departed  spirits.  On  the  one  hand,  it  rescues  the  words 
from  the  arbitrary  meanings  which  doctrinal  considerations 
have  so  often  led  pious  minds  to  put  on  them;  and,  on  the 
other,  it  removes  the  ground,  which  has  too  often  been  sought 
in  the  passage,  not  only  by  Romish,  but  even  by  some  Pro 
testant  writers,  who  find  a  door  of  hope  for  certain  classes  of 
those  who  have  lived  and  died  in  sin.  The  reference  to  the 
antediluvians  in  the  age  of  Noah  is  not  to  some  individuals 
among  them,  for  whom  possibly  some  better  fate  might  have 
been  reserved,  but  to  the  collective  race  as  a  well-known  class 
in  sacred  history;  and  to  them  as  still  detained  in  the  prison 

1  It  is  no  objection  to  the  view  now  given,  that  xqpvaac*  is  commonly  used 
in  the  sense  of  a  gospel  proclamation ;  for  it  is  neither  necessarily  nor  al 
ways  so  used.  In  Rom.  ii.  21,  it  is  coupled  with  abstinence  from  steal 
ing  as  its  object — a  preaching  of  moral  duty.  Here  the  reference  mani 
festly  is  to  the  ancient  preaching  of  Noah;  and  to  connect  this  action  of 
Christ  with  his  the  term  might  justly  seem  the  fittest. 
29 


838  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF 

of  judgment,  not  as  having  any  prospect  of  deliverance  from 
it.  Nay,  on  this  very  circumstance  the  great  moral  of  the 
reference  properly  turns  ',  for  it  is  their  protracted,  everlasting 
destination  to  a  doom  of  suffering,  as  contrasted  with  Christ's 
suffering  but  once,  and,  that  over,  entering  on  a  fresh  career 
of  Ufa  and  glory,  which  lent  all  its  weight  to  the  exhortation 
given,  to  prefer  suffering  for  righteousness-sake  to  suffering 
for  sin.  In  what  follows  also  the  same  account  substantially 
is  made  of  their  case;  they  are  thought  of  simply  as  repro 
bate  and  lost.  It  is  in  Noah  alone,  and  the  little  remnant  in 
the  ark,  whom  the  waters,  that  destroyed  the  corrupt  and  pes 
tilential  mass  around  them,  saved,  to  be  the  seed  of  a  new 
world,  that  the  prototypes  are  found  of  the  genuine  subjects 
and  fruits  of  Christian  baptism.  And  what  does  this  imply 
of  the  mass  whom  the  waters  engulfed?  Plainly,  that  their 
counterpart  in  Christian  times  is  to  be  sought  in  the  corrup 
tions  of  the  flesh  and  the  world,  from  which  it  is  the  design 
of  baptism  through  the  power  of  Christ's  resurrection,  to  save 
His  people — corruptions  which,  like  their  antediluvian  exem 
plars,  are  irreconcilably  opposed  to  the  life  of  God,  and  can 
have  no  end  but  destruction. 


SECTION  SEVENTH. 

ON  THE  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF  dca6^'/:/j  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

THE  word  now  to  be  considered  is  of  frequent  occurrence, 
both  in  Scripture,  and  in  the  classics,  but  usually  in  a  some 
what  different  sense.  In  the  classics  it  commonly  signifies 
disposition,  arrangement, — or,  more  specifically,  that  parti 
cular  disposition  which  is  denominated  a  mans  ivill  and  tes 
tament — the  deed  by  which  he  finally  disposes  of  his  effects. 
The  latter  is  the  more  common  usage;  whence  the  old  glos 
saries  gave  testamentum  as  the  Latin  synonym.  The  cases 
are  so  rare  in  which  with  classical  authors  it  is  found  in  any 
other  sense,  that  little  account  needs  to  be  made  of  them. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  389 

They  do  occur,  however,  and  in  one  passage  at  least,  the  Aves 
of  Aristophanes,  1.  480,  the  phrase,  dtadscdac  ocaOr^v^  is  used 
to  express  the  making  of  a  compact  or  covenant,  to  be  carried 
out  between  two  parties.  But  the  common  noun  for  such  cases 
was  undoubtedly  ffubdyxq.  Yet  for  what  was  emphatically 
the  covenant  in  ancient  times,  the  Septuagint  has  preferred 
diaOvjxir],  which,  accordingly,  among  Greek-speaking  Jews,  be 
came  the  appropriate  term  for  the  covenant  of  God  with  Is 
rael.  The  first  occasions  on  which  the  word  was  used  had  re 
spect  to  transactions  which  strikingly  displayed  the  goodness 
of  God  in  making  sure  provision  for  the  present  safety  and 
highest  well-being  of  man  (Gen.  ix.  9,  xvii.  7.)  It  is  possible, 
we  may  even  say  probable,  that  on  this  account  mainly  the 
term  diadyic/]  was  employed  rather  than  auvd'q^  for  the  latter 
might  justly  seem  an  inadequate  expression  to  characterize 
arrangements,  in  which  it  appeared  so  prominent  an  object  to 
make  men  recipients  of  the  Divine  goodness,  personally  par 
takers,  or  instrumentally  channels  of  blessing.  It  seemed 
more  fitting  to  employ  a  term  which,  without  altogether  losing 
sight  of  the  mutual  relationship,  as  between  two  parties  some 
how  standing  in  contract,  should  still  give  chief  prominence 
to  the  beneficence  of  God  in  disposing  of  His  affairs,  so  as  to 
provide  a  suitable  heritage  of  good  for  His  people.  In  this 
light  it  appears  to  have  been  understood  by  some  of  the  Fa 
thers.  Thus  Clemens  Alex,  describes  dcadrjxq  as  that  "which 
God,  the  Author  of  the  universe,  makes;"  namely,  His  ar 
rangement  or  disposition  of  the  riches  of  His  bounty.  Suidas 
defines  it  as  'q  Ozo7)  ~(ooc  'Aftpaa/ji,  xac  robs  XotTiovz  irpoitdropac 
YsyoiJLsvq  Ixaft-sMa,  the  promise  which  God  made  to  Abraham 
and  the  other  patriarchs.  Isidore  of  Pel  us  i  am  gives  it  a  some 
what  different  turn,  and  points  to  a  more  special  character 
istic,  but  one  also  that  is  derived  from  its  more  peculiar  refe 
rence  to  God.  He  says,  u-0uy(fajxq  is  called  in  Scripture  a  tes 
tament  because  the  promise  it  contains  is  firm  and  permanent; 
pactions,  indeed,  are  often  broken  up,  but  legal  testaments 
never."  (See  Suicer.) 

But,  however  we  may  thus  be  able  to  account  for  the  use 
of  dcajtyxn  rather  than  of  0uv6qxyt  as  a  translation.of  the  Heb. 


840  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF 

bcrith,  we  must  not  allow  it  to  assume,  in  its  ordinary  use,  the 
classical  sense  of  testament,  rather  than  of  covenant.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  that  covenant  is  the  proper  rendering  of  be- 
rith;  and  as  dtaOyw)  was  employed  as  its  synonym  by  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  it  must  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  the  original — unless 
the  connexion  should  determine  otherwise.  Indeed,  for  any 
thing  that  appears  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  the  Israelites 
knew  nothing  of  testaments  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term ; 
their  rights  of  property  were  so  regulated  as  to  render  these 
for  the  most  part  unnecessary ;  if  only  the  means  were  at  hand 
for  ascertaining  the  family  descent  and  relationship  of  the 
parties  concerned.  They  consequently  made  much  account 
of  genealogies,  but  none,  so  far  as  we  know,  of  testaments. 
When  God,  however,  designated  the  transactions  into  which 
He  entered  with  their  fathers  by  the  name  of  covenant,  even 
though  the  pledged  and  promised  goodness  of  God  might  be 
the  most  prominent  feature  in  them,  the  idea  of  a  mutual  pac- 
tion  or  agreement  was  still  meant  to  be  kept  steadily  in  view; 
— the  Lord  sustained  one  part,  and  the  people  another.  And 
this  was  done,  primarily,  that  they  might  have  a  clear  and  af 
fecting  proof  of  His  desire  to  assure  them  of  the  certainty  of 
the  things  guarantied  in  the  covenant.  Not  for  this  only, 
however,  but  for  the  farther  purpose  of  impressing  upon  their 
minds  the  feeling,  that  they  had  a  part  to  perform  to  God,  as 
well  as  God  to  them,  and  that  faithfulness  in  duty,  on  the  one 
side,  must  keep  pace  with  bountifulness  in  giving  on  the  other. 
Such  was  the  case  even  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  which  is 
called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  covenant  of  promise;  for  the 
assurance  it  contained  of  a  numerous  and  blessed  offspring 
carried  along  with  it  the  condition,  that  parent  and  offspring 
alike  should  abide  in  the  faith  of  God  and  keep  His  charge. 
In  the  English  Bible  the  word  covenant  is  the  uniform  ren 
dering  adopted  for  the  Heb.  berith;  and  so  is  it  also  in  New 
Testament  Scripture  for  oeaOyzy,  whenever  the  word  points 
to  the  covenants  made  with  the  patriarchs  or  at  Sinai.  Yet 
in  the  designation  of  the  Scriptures,  which  belong  to  the  pe 
riods  embraced  by  those  covenants,  the  sense  of  testament  has 
been  generally  introduced.  By  a  natural  metonymy,  the 


*  dtaO-fcy  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  341 

writings  that  pertain  to  a  period  during  which  a  deaOyxq  was 
in  force  had  this  applied  to  them  as  an  appropriate  name. 
Thus,  in  2  Cor.  iii.  14,  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  veil  remaining 
on  the  minds  of  the  Jews,  Ine  TTJ  ava*(vtb(jzc  rrfi  nodae&c  deadij- 
xr^,  at  the  reading  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  our  translators 
have  rendered  it,  not.  of  the  Old  Covenant.  We  have  become 
so  much  accustomed  to  the  use  of  Testament  in  this  applica 
tion,  that  we  rarely  think  whether  it  is  altogether  appropriate 
or  not.  Yet  had  it  been  proposed  for  the  first  time  to  our 
consideration,  it  could  hardly  have  failed  to  strike  us  as  a  sort 
of  anomaly  in  language,  that  the  term  Testament  should  be 
employed  as  the  distinctive  epithet  for  writings  in  which  the 
term  itself  never  occurs,  while  the  term  covenant  is  of  frequent 
use,  and  in  the  later  Scriptures,  old  covenant  is  employed  to 
designate  a  period  altogether  or  nearly  past,  in  contradistinc 
tion  to  a  new  and  better  era  approaching,  (Jer.  xxxi.  31.) 
The  Old  covenant,  therefore,  was  clearly  the  fitting  designa 
tion  for  the  earlier  half  of  the  Bible,  rather  than  the  Old  Tes 
tament.1  The  Vulgate,  however,  by  its  adoption  of  testamen- 
tum,  instead  of  fcedus,  has  in  this  respect  given  the  law  to 
modeTn  times.  Some  of  the  earlier  versions  presented  both 
terms,  at  least  in  respect  to  New  Testament  Scripture,  as  Be- 
za's  Testamentum  Novum,  Sive  Foedus  Novum,  and  the  Ge 
nevan  French,  Le  Nouveau  Testament,  c'est  a  dire  la  Nouvelle 
Alliance.  But  the  alternative  phrase  never  came  into  gene 
ral  use;  and  the  only  prevailing  designation  has  been,  and 
still  is,  The  Scriptures  of  the  Old  arid  the  New  Testaments. 

1  Kohlbrugge,  in  a  treatise  Wozu  das  alte  Testament,  objects  also  to  this  de 
signation,  and  deems  it  not  warranted  by  the  language  of  the  apostle  in  2 
Cor.  iii.  14.  He  conceives  the  apostle  to  be  there  speaking  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  not  absolutely,  but  as  they  are  to  the  unbelieving  and  blinded 
Jews;  to  these  they  are  merely  the  old  covenant,  while  to  the  enlightened 
believer,  who  can  read  them  with  open  eye,  they  display  the  new  covenant. 
Undoubtedly  the  books  are  very  different  things  to  the  two  classes  mentioned  ; 
but  the  plain  and  natural  import  of  the  apostle's  language  points  to  the  books 
themselves,  as  containing  what  pertains  to  the  Old  Covenant.  Their  further 
and  prospective  reference  is  not  here  taken  into  account.  And  if  persons  now 
think  themselves  entitled  to  disregard  those  books,  because  they  are  specially 
connected  with  the  Old  Covenant,  this  is  an  abuse  chargeable  on  their  own 
ignorance  and  sin. 

29* 


342  IMPORT  AND  USE  OP 

Of  course,  as  a  convenient  term  for  simply  designating  the 
two  component  parts  of  the  Bible,  it  is  of  little  moment  whe 
ther  we  use  the  one  or  the  other.  The  current  epithets  serve 
well  enough  to  distribute  the  inspired  writings  into  two  sec 
tions  or  parts,  standing  related  to  each  other,  the  one  as  the 
earlier,  the  other  as  the  later  revelation  of  Divine  truth;  the 
one  springing  up  in  connexion  with  that  state  of  things  which 
preceded  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  has  vanished  away ;  the 
other  with  that  which  was  introduced  by  Christ,  and  abides 
for  ever.  But  as  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  substitution 
of  Testament  for  covenant,  in  the  designation  of  Scripture, 
arose  from  a  disposition  to  regard  the  economy  of  Christ's  sal 
vation  in  the  light  of  a  testament  rather  than  of  a  covenant — 
as  on  this  account  the  writings  of  evangelists  and  apostles 
came  to  be  denominated  The  New  Testament,  and  in  confor 
mity  with  this  appellation  that  of  Old  Testament  was  assigned 
to  the  Law  and  the  Prophets — the  question  very  naturally 
presents  itself,  whether  such  be  the  Scriptural  view  of  the 
matter?  Whether  the  gift  of  Christ,  and  the  benefits  of  His 
redemption,  are  exhibited  in  the  light  of  a  testamentary  be 
quest?  For  if  they  are  not,  then  the  testamentary  aspect  of 
redemption  must  be  pronounced  formally  incorrect,  however 
in  substance  accordant  with  the  truth  of  things ;  but  if  they 
are,  the  form  also  is  capable  of  vindication.  In  neither  case 
is  any  doctrine  of  Scripture  involved  in  the  inquiry;  it  touches 
merely  the  mode  of  representation. 

Now,  as  otaOr^  constantly  bears  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
sense  of  covenant,  it  may  justly  be  inferred  to  carry  the  same 
meaning  in  the  New,  unless  the  connexion  should,  in  certain 
cases,  plainly  decide  in  favour  of  the  other  rendering.  So 
far  as  regards  our  Lord's  personal  teaching,  there  is  no  room 
for  any  difference  of  view  on  the  subject.  Though  lie  fre 
quently  referred  to  both  the  affairs  and  the  writings  of  the 
old  economy,  He  was  very  sparing  in  the  use  of  the  term  ota.- 
drjxy.  Ho  docs  not  employ  it  to  designate  the  revelation  of 
law  from  Sinai;  nor  are  the  transactions  entered  into  with, 
the  patriarchs,  as  the  heads  of  the  Jewish  people  ;  or  with  Da 
vid,  as  the  founder  of  the  royal  house,  called  by  this  name. 


-/]  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  843 

The  first,  and  the  only  time  that  the  word  appears  in  our 
Lord's  discourses,  is  at  th-e  institution  of  the  Supper.  The 
•words  of  institution  slightly  vary  in  the  accounts  of  the  three 
evangelists,  and  of  the  apostle  Paul,  (1  Cor.  xi. ;)  but  in  each 
of  them  He  is  represented  as  using  the  expression  57  xac^  oca- 
(hjxy.  And  using  it,  as  He  does,  without  a  word  of  explana 
tion,  we  cannot  doubt  that  He  intended  it  to  be  taken  by  the 
disciples  in  its  current  acceptation;  namely,  in  the  sense  of 
covenant;  for  in  that  sense  alone  had  it  hitherto  been  em 
ployed.  Nor  can  we  but  regard  it  as  unfortunate,  that  at  that 
special  moment  in  our  Lord's  ministry,  and  in  connexion  with 
the  most  sacred  and  distinctive  institution  of  His  kingdom, 
the  later  rendering  of  testament  should  have  been  substituted 
for  the  earlier  one  of  covenant.  For  it  confuses  the  expres 
sion  in  words  which  are  of  perpetual  recurrence,  as  well  as  so 
lemn  import,  and  in  respect  to  which  it  was  desirable  that  the 
greatest  clearness  and  certainty  should  exist;  and  in  so  far 
as  the  language  may  be  distinctly  understood,  it  presents  the 
great  redemption  in  an  aspect  which  had  not  at  least  been 
previously  exhibited,  and  could  not  therefore  have  been  in 
tended  at  the  time. 

How,  then,  it  may  naturally  be  asked,  should  such  a  sense 
have  been  so  generally  put  upon  it?  Are  there  other  pas 
sages  in  subsequent  portions  of  New  Testament  Scripture,  in 
which  the  word,  in  its  connexion  with  the  work  of  Christ,  con 
clusively  bears  the  meaning  of  testament?  There  is  a  remarka 
ble  one  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  which  it  certainly 
appears  to  have  that  meaning,  and  which  will  call  for  special 
investigation.  Leaving  that  passage,  however,  for  a  moment 
(which  is  in  ch.  ix.,)  there  are  various  other  places  where  the 
word  deadly.'/]  is  used;  and  always,  it  is  proper  to  note,  in 
reference  to  what  was  strictly  a  covenant.  In  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  itself,  we  read  once  and  again  of  two  covenants — 
an  old  and  a  new;  the  former  imperfect  in  its  nature  and  pro 
visions,  and  destined  to  last  only  till  the  time  of  reformation; 
the  latter,  founded  on  better  promises,  complete  in  all  its  ar 
rangements,  consequently  declared  to  be  everlasting.  In  like 
manner,  in  Gal.  iv.  24 — 31,  we  have  a  discourse  upon  the 


344  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF 

two  covenants,  the  covenants  of  law  and  of  promise,  as  alle 
gorized  'or  typified  by  the  facts  and  relations  of  Abraham's 
family;  the  term  deadyxae  being  used  as  the  common  designa 
tion  of   both.     Again,  in  the  third  chapter  of   the  Second 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  a  contrast  is  drawn  between  the 
two  covenants — the  old  and  the  new — -in  respect  to  the  points, 
in  which  the  one  differed  from,  by  rising  superior  to,  the  other. 
In  this  comparison,  however,  the  word  dcaQyxq  is  only  once 
used ;  and  our  translators,  following  the  Vulgate  and  the  earlier 
English  versions,  have  rendered  it  testament  ("who  hath  made 
us  able  ministers  of  the  New  Testament,"  ver.  6.)     Such  was 
their  regard  to  those  guides,  that  on  one  occasion  they  have 
even  adopted  this  rendering  in  connexion  with  a  phrase  which, 
in  all  the  other  passages  where  it  occurs,  has  been  otherwise 
translated.      The  passage  is  Rev.  xi.  19,  where  the  temple 
presented  itself  in  vision  to  the  prophet,  and  he  saw  "  the  ark 
of  the  testament,"  as  we  find  it  rendered,  but,  as  it  should 
rather  have  been,  "the  ark  of  the  covenant."     In  all  these 
cases,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that,  whether  referring 
to  the  old  or  to  the  new  things  in  God's  dispensations,  the 
"word  dtadyxT]  is  to  be  understood  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
covenant.     So  that  if,  in  the  one  remaining  passage  where  it 
occurs,  we  should  see  reason  for  adopting  the  sense  of  testa 
ment,  this  would  furnish  no  ground  for  altering  the  transla 
tion  in  the  other  passages  that  have  been  referred  to.     The 
less  so,  indeed,  as  the  passage  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  Hebrews, 
as  far  as  regards  what  is  denoted  by  dtadijxy,  is  of  a  somewhat 
general  nature ;  it  does  not  point  exclusively,  or  even  specially, 
to  the  transactions  bearing  that  name  in  Scripture,  but  rather 
to  the  nature  of  deadqxai  generally — what  those  of  Scripture 
have  in  common  with  others. 

But  let  us  turn  to  the  passage  itself.  Commencing  with 
verse  15,  for  the  sake  of  the  connexion,  it  reads  thus  in  the 
authorized  version:  "For  this  cause  He  (viz.  Christ)  is  the 
Mediator  of  the  New  Testament,  that  by  means  of  death,  for 
the  redemption  of  the  transgressions  that  were  under  the  first 
testament  (oeaO^xvj  both  times,)  they  that  are  called  might 
receive  the  promise  of  the  eternal  inheritance.  For  where 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  345 

a  testament  is,  there  must  also  of  necessity  be  the  death 
of  the  testator  (oxov  jap  dcaOrf/y,  OdvaTou  dydfxq  tpepsaOcu 
TO~J  dcaftefJLevov.}  For  a  testament  is  of  force  after  men  are 
dead  (Ixl  v£*/>o?c;)  otherwise,  it  is  of  no  strength  at  all,  while 
the  testator  liveth  (ore  C/j  b  deaOsfi^o^.)  Whereupon  neither 
the  first  (viz.  testament)  was  dedicated  without  blood."  The 
meaning  obtained  by  this  rendering  may  be  briefly  stated 
thus:  A  will  does  not  become  valid  so  long  as  the  person 
making  it  is  alive;  it  is  a  disposition  of  his  affairs  proceeding 
on  the  contemplation  of  his  death,  and  can  only  take  effect 
when  he  has  himself  ceased  to  live;  whence  also  Christ,  as 
the  testator  of  an  inheritance  of  blessing  for  His  people, 
must  die  before  the  benefit  provided  by  Him  can  be  reaped. 
So  understood,  and  viewed  with  reference  to  the  practice 
known  to  exist  among  Greeks  and  Romans  respecting  wills, 
the  sense  of  the  passage  is  plain  enough.  The  only  question 
is,  will  the  sense  obtained  suit  the  connexion,  and  meet 
the  real  circumstances  of  the  case?  There  are,  obviously, 
some  apparent  incongruities  in  the  way;  both  at  the  com 
mencement  and  at  the  close.  The  statement  is  brought  in  to 
illustrate  a  certain  correspondence  between  the  preparatory 
and  the  final  in  God's  dispensations:  Christ  is  the  Mediator  of 
a  new  deaOyxq,  that  by  His  death  He  might  purchase  redemp 
tion  for  those  who  could  not  obtain  it  by  the  old;  for  where  a 
is  there  must  of  necessity  be  the  death  of  the  oeads- 
But  the  notion  of  testament  here  involves  some  diffi 
culty  ;  since  a  mediator,  in  ordinary  circumstances,  has  no 
thing  to  do  with  a  testament;  nor  is  there  any  essential  link 
of  connexion  between  a  mediator  and  a  testator.  Then,  again, 
at  the  close,  where  it  is  said,  "Whence  the  first  also — the 
first  deadyxq — was  not  consecrated  without  blood,"  it  is  not 
death,  as  of  a  testator,  but  consecration  from  defilement,  that 
is  represented  as  constituting  the  establishment  of  the  earlier 
dtaOyxy.  So  that  the  connexion  at  both  ends  seems  to  hang 
somewhat  loosely  with  the  notion  of  a  testament;  and  if  that 
notion  is  here  the  correct  one,  its  justification  must  be  sought 
in  some  peculiarity  connected,  either  with  the  transactions 
referred  to,  or  with  the  point  of  view  from  which  they  are 


346  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF 

contemplated.     It  is  possible,  that  such  may  be  found,  when 
the  subject  is  properly  considered. 

Meanwhile,  it  is  right  to  state,  that  the  difficulties  are  by 
no  means  lessened  by  resorting  to  the  other  translation,  and 
rendering  by  covenant.  The  late  Professor  Scholefield,  who 
preferred  this  rendering,  still  found  himself  so  beset  with  dif 
ficulty,  that  the  passage  appeared  to  him  the  "most  perplexing 
in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament." l  He  would  render  ver. 
16,  17,  "For  where  a  covenant  is,  there  must  of  necessity  be 
brought  in  the  death  of  the  mediating  [sacrifice.]  For,  a 
covenant  is  valid  over  dead  [viz.  sacrifices;]  since  it  is  never 
of  any  force  while  the  mediating  [sacrifice]  continues  alive." 
Here,  we  are  first  of  all  struck  with  the  number  of  ellipses 
in  so  short  a  passage ;  sacrifice  or  sacrifices  requiring  to  be 
supplied  no  less  than  three  times — to  ota.dzp.evou,  in  ver.  16, 
then  to  inl  vexpotz,  in  the  first  part  of  ver.  17,  and  again  to 
ocaOsfJisuot;  in  the  second.  It  is  plainly  too  much ;  especially 
as  a  transition  is  made  from  the  singular  to  the  plural,  and 
back  again  from  the  plural  to  the  singular.  Sacrifice  and 
sacrifices  were  not  wont  thus  to  be  interchanged  in  the  reality. 
Then,  to  speak  of  sacrifices  as  dead,  is  altogether  unusual, 
still  more  to  put  dead  simply  for  sacrificial  victims;  no  proper 
parallel  can  be  produced  to  justify  such  a  license.  And, 
finally,  the  rendering  of  dcads/ievoz  by  mediating  sacrifice  is 
equally  unwarranted:  when  used  in  regard  to  covenant  trans 
actions,  it  is  so  naturally  understood  of  him  who  makes  the 
covenant,  that,  as  Professor  Scholefield  remarks,  a  strong 
nerve  should  be  required  for  any  one,  that  would  be  conscious 
of  no  difficulty  in  giving  it  a  different  sense  here.  In  short, 
it  is  an  entirely  arbitrary  translation,  and  no  support  can  be 
found  for  it  in  the  whole  range  of  Greek  literature.  This 
alone  is  fatal  to  the  view  under  consideration ;  and  when  taken 
along  with  the  objections  previously  urged,  leaves  the  matter 
under  this  aspect  utterly  hopeless. 

It  could  serve  no  end  to  examine  in  detail  the  other  modi 
fications  of  the  view,  which  proceeds  to  the  adoption  of  cove- 

1  Hints  for  Some  Improvements  in  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New 
Testament,  p.  142. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  347 

nant  for  the  sense  of  dtafhjxq,  and  "over  dead  sacrifices"  for 
l~c  vsxpdtz.  The  same  objections  substantially,  or  others 
equally  valid,  apply  to  each  of  them.  We  revert,  therefore, 
to  the  apparently  natural  sense  of  testament,  and  inquire 
whether  there  be  not  some  point  of  view,  from  which,  if  the 
subject  be  contemplated,  a  natural  and  satisfactory  vindica 
tion  may  be  gained  for  it.  This,  we  are  persuaded,  is  to  be 
found.  The  statement,  it  will  be  perceived  in  this  aspect  of 
the  matter,  proceeds  upon  the  apprehension  of  a  certain 
agreement  between  a  covenant  made  by  God  for  the  good  of 
men,  and  a  will  or  testament  made  by  a  man  in  behoof  of  his 
heirs.  There  are,  no  doubt,  obvious  points  of  difference 
between  the  two;  in  this  respect  especially,  that  in  a  cove 
nant  strictly  so  called,  there  is  something  of  the  nature  of  a 
mutual  engagement  or  contract  between  the  covenanting  par 
ties.  This,  however,  is  not  the  aspect  in  which  the  Divine 
covenants  are  contemplated  in  this  portion  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  From  ch.  viii.  6,  where  a  formal  comparison 
begins  to  be  instituted  between  the  New  and  the  Old,  they  are 
viewed  in  the  light  of  a  disposition  or  arrangement,  on  the 
part  of  God,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  certain  blessings  to 
His  people — imperfectly  and  provisionally  in  the  Old  Cove 
nant,  adequately  and  finally  in  the  New.  On  this  account, 
the  contracting  element  in  them  naturally  falls  into  the  back 
ground,  and  the  beneficiary  or  promissory  alone  comes  into 
view;  the  discussion  turns  upon  what  God  has  done  and  laid 
up  for  them  that  fear  Him,  scarcely,  if  at  all,  upon  what  they 
are  taken  bound  to  do  for  God.  Now,  it  is  precisely  here, 
that  a  point  of  contact  is  to  be  found  between  a  covenant 
of  God  and  a  testament  of  man;  the  very  point  which  led 
to  the  adoption  of  dcaO'foir]  as  the  fittest  term  for  expressing 
the  Heb.  berith;  because  a  covenant  of  God,  in  this  aspect  of 
it,  is  not,  in  the  ordinary  sense,  a  GuvOr/x"/]  or  compact,  but 
rather  a  dtaOyxr)  or  disposition,  an  unfolding  of  the  way  and 
manner  in  which  men  may  attain  to  a  participation  or  inheri 
tance  in  the  riches  of  Divine  grace  and  goodness.  It  is  to 
this  common  element,  that  the  apostle  points,  and  on  it  that  he 
founds  this  part  of  his  argument  for  the  superiority  of  the 


348  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF 

New  over  the  Old.  The  first,  he  in  effect  tells  us,  did  con 
tain  a  disposition  from  the  Lord's  hand  as  to  the  participa 
tion  of  His  riches;  but  one  only  provisional  and  temporary, 
because  of  its  presenting  no  proper  satisfaction  for  the  sins 
of  the  people..  It  left  the  guilt  of  these  sins  still  standing 
Tin-atoned,  in  the  eye  of  Divine  Justice,  and  so,  if  taken  simply 
by  itself,  it  could  not  provide  for  men  the  eternal  inheritance 
•which  God  destines  for  His  people.  Christ,  who  comes  ac 
tually  to  provide,  and  confer  on  men,  a  title  to  this  inheri 
tance,  must  therefore  come  as  the  executor  of  a  new  dtadiqx.'q, 
to  make  good  the  deficiencies  of  the  Old,  and  by  a  valid  atone 
ment  remove  the  sins,  which  continued  to  lie  as  a  bar  across 
the  path  to  the  inheritance.  He  must  (as  stated  in  ver.  15) 
through JHis  death  provide  redemption  for  the  transgressions 
pertaining  to  the  first  covenant,  that  they  who  had  been  called 
under  it,  as  well  as  those  called  now,  might  have  the  promise 
of  the  inheritance  made  good  in  their  behalf.  Thus  it  comes 
to  pass,  that  to  do  here  the  part  of  an  effective  mediator,  in 
establishing  a  complete  and  valid  covenant,  Christ  has,  at  the 
same  time,  to  do  the  part  of  a  testator;  He  must  lose  the 
personal  possession  of  His  goods,  before  He  can  secure  for 
His  people  a  right  to  participate  in  them ;  to  enrich  them  He 
must,  for  a  time,  impoverish  Himself — die  the  death  that  they 
(along  with  Him)  may  ultimately  inherit  eternal  life.  And 
so,  in  this  fundamental  respect,  the  two  ideas  of  covenant 
and  testament  coalesce  in  the  work  of  Christ;  He  is  at  once 
Mediator  and  Testator;  at  one  and  the  same  moment  He 
establishes  for  ever  what  God  pledges  Himself  in  covenant  to 
bestow,  and  by  His  voluntary  death  transmits  to  others  the 
inheritance  of  life  and  blessing  wherein  it  consists.  It  is,  there 
fore,  as  true  of  this  Divine  deadyzy,  as  of  any  human  testa 
ment,  that  it  could  not  be  of  force  till  the  deaOs/Jtsuoc;  had 
died.  Till  then  the  inheritance  was  bound  up  indissolubly 
with  His  own  person ;  and  through  His  death  alone  was  it 
set  free  for  others;  as  was  plainly  intimated  under  a  natural 
image,  by  our  Lord  Himself,  when  He  said,  "Verity,  verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground 
and  die,  it  abideth  alone;  but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much 
fruit/'  (John  xii.  24.) 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  349 

When  viewed  in  the  light  now  presented,  the  allusion  of 
the  inspired  writer  is  very  different  from  what  is  commonly 
represented — a  mere  play  upon  words.      On  the.  contrary, 
each  word  is  retained  in  its  natural  and  appropriate  meaning, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  there  appears  a  strictly  logical  con 
nexion  in  the  argument.     The  train  of  thought  proceeds,  not 
upon  a  fanciful  or  fictitious,  but  upon  a  real  point  of  coinci 
dence  and  agreement  between  a  Divine  covenant  and  a  human 
testament;  hence  also,  between   Christ  the  mediator  of  the 
covenant,  and  Christ  the  testator  of  the  eternal  inheritance; 
since  it  is  the  great  object  of  the  covenant,  whether  in  its  old 
or  its  new  form,  to  instate  men  in  the  possession  of  that  in 
heritance,  and  the  great  end  of  Christ's  work  as  mediator,  to 
open  the  way  to  the  possession  by  His  sacrificial  death.     With 
perfect  propriety,  therefore,  might  the  apostle,  in   confirma 
tion  of  his  principle  respecting  the  necessity  of  an  interve- 
nient  death,  point  back  to  the  offerings  of  blood  at  the  ratifi 
cation  of  the  old  covenant,  and  identify  death  (as  of  a  testa 
tor)  with  consecration  by  blood  (as  through  sacrifice.)     For 
as   the  old  covenant  did  make  a   provisional  or  temporary 
arrangement  for   men   attaining   to   the   inheritance    of  life 
and  blessing,  it  had  in  consequence  to  be  ratified  by  a  pro 
visional   or   typical   death.      The    death   inflicted   there   was 
Christ's  death  in  symbol,  as  the  blessing  inherited  was  Christ's 
blessing  by  anticipation.     But  in  the  passage  before  us,  the 
typical  blood  is  presented  in  the  more  common  aspect  of  a 
consecration  (ver.  18;)  and,  under  that  aspect,  its  necessity 
and  value  are  set  forth,  in  the  verses  that  follow,  as  the  one 
grand  medium  of  access  for  sinners  to  the  region  of  eternal 
glory.     This  simply  arose  from  the  two  aspects  of  death — 
death  as  necessary  to  the  participation  of  the  inheritance, 
and  death  as  necessary  to  purification  from  sin — happening 
to  coalesce  in  Christ;  so  that  the  same  act,  which  was  needed 
to  secure,  and  did  secure  a  title  to  the  inheritance,  was  also 
needed  to  consecrate,  and  did  consecrate,  a  way  to  the  eternal 
inheritance;  and  but  for  the  one  necessity,  the  other  should 
never  have  existed.     The  two  ideas,  therefore,  so  far  as  Christ 
is  concerned,  run  into  each  other;  and  as  that  of  consecration 
30 


850  THE  IMPORT  AND  USE  OF 

was  both  the  more  usual,  and  the  most  immediately  connected 
with  the  great  theme  of  the  epistle,  the  sacred  penman  quite 
naturally  resumes  and  prosecutes  it — quitting  the  other,  which 
had  been  but  casually  introduced  for  the  sake  of  confirming  a 
truth,  and  marking  a  point  of  connexion  between  things  sacred 
and  common. 

Such  appears  to  us  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  pas 
sage,  and  the  proper  mode  of  explicating  its  meaning.  The 
difficulty  felt  in  arriving  at  this  has  arisen  mainly  from  over 
looking  the  special  ground  of  the  apostle's  statement;  that  is, 
the  common  element  or  point  of  coincidence  between  a  human 
testament  and  a  Divine  covenant  in  the  particular  aspect  re 
ferred  to.  Both  alike  contain  a  disposition  in  regard  to  the 
joint  participation  by  others  of  the  goods  of  him  who  makes 
it;  and  a  participation  that  requires,  as  its  indispensable  con 
dition,  his  own  subjection  to  the  power  of  death.  We  thus 
obtain  a  clear  and  natural  sense  from  the  passage,  without 
interfering  with  the  received,  which  is  certainly  also  the  ap 
parent,  import  of  the  words.1  At  the  same  time,  while  we 
here  vindicate  the  received  translation,  we  cannot  but  regard 
it  as  somewhat  unfortunate,  that  on  the  ground  of  a  thought 
so  casually  introduced,  and  a  meaning  of  ocadr^  nowhere  else 
distinctly  exhibited  in  Scripture,  many,  both  of  the  ancient, 
and  of  the  more  modern  theological  writers,  should  have  given 
such  prominence  to  the  testamentary  aspect  of  the  scheme  of  re 
demption.  The  Cocceian  school,  to  which  several  of  our  own 
older  divines  belonged,  had  a  sort  of  predilection  for  this 
mode  of  exhibiting  Christ's  relation  to  his  people,  and  thereby 
gave  a  somewhat  artificial  air  to  their  explanations  of  things 
connected  with  the  covenant  of  grace.  They  were  wont  to 
treat  formally  of  the  testament,  the  testator,  the  executor, 
the  legatees,  and  the  legacies.  Such  a  style  of  representation, 
though  not  altogether  unwarranted  by  Scripture,  has  yet  no 
broad  and  comprehensive  ground  to  rest  upon  there.  When 

1  The  considerations,  on  which  the  above  explanation  is  made  to  turn 
had  not  suggested  themselves  to  me  when  I  wrote  the  article  on  the  Epis 
tle  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review  for  Sept. 
1854.  I  there  adopted  substantially  Ebrard's  view. 


deadrjxy  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  351 

salvation  is  exhibited  in  connexion  with  a  covenant,  it  is 
always  (with  the  exception  just  noticed  in  Heb.  ix.  15-17) 
covenant  in  the  ordinary  sense  that  is  to  be  understood — a 
sense,  that  involves  the  idea  of  mutual  engagements — indi 
vidual  parts  to  be  fulfilled,  and  corresponding  relations  to  be 
maintained — though  the  place  occupied  by  God  is  pre-emi 
nently  that  of  a  bountiful  and  gracious  benefactor.  And  to 
keep  attention  alive  to  the  strictly  covenant  aspect  of  re 
demption,  it  had,  doubtless,  been  better  to  have  retained  in 
the  authorized  version  the  rendering  of  covenant  for  dtadrjxin 
in  all  but  the  one  passage  of  Hebrews,  and  to  have  designated 
the  Bible  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Covenants,  rather 
than  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  In  particular,  it  had 
been  better,  in  the  words  connected  with  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  to  have  retained  the  common  rendering, 
and  read,  "This  is  the  new  covenant  in  My  blood;"  since  all 
should  thus  have  readily  perceived,  that  the  Lord  pointed  to 
the  Divine  covenant,  in  its  new  and  better  form,  as  contra 
distinguished  from  that  which  had  been  brought  in  by  Moses, 
and  which  had  now  reached  the  end  of  its  appointment.  Due 
pains  should  be  taken  to  instruct  the  unlearned,  that  such  is 
the  import  of  the  expression,  and  also  to  inform  them,  that 
while  the  covenant,  as  established  in  His  blood,  bears  the 
epithet  new,  it  is  so  designated  merely  from  respect  to  the 
order  of  exhibition,  while,  if  viewed  with  respect  to  the  mind 
and  purpose  of  God,  this  is  the  first  as  well  as  the  last — 
the  covenant,  which  was  planned  in  the  counsels  of  eternity 
to  retrieve  the  ruin  of  the  fall,  and  out  of  the  depths  of  per 
dition  to  raise  up  a  spiritual  and  blessed  offspring  for  God. 


352  TERMS  INDICATIVE  OP  THE 


SECTION  EIGHTH. 

ON  THE  IMPORT  OF  CERTAIN  TERMS  EMPLOYED  IN  NEW  TESTA 
MENT  SCRIPTURE  TO  INDICATE  THE  NATURE  AND  EXTENT  OF 
THE  RENOVATION  TO  BE  ACCOMPLISHED  THROUGH  THE  GOS 

PEL  ;  fj-STdvota,  naJii'ffevsfflay  dvaxcuvoMTic,  aTioxardaraff^. 

THE  mission  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  institution 
consequent  on  it  of  His  spiritual  kingdom,  have  for  their  ob 
ject  the  accomplishment  of  a  great  arid  comprehensive  reno 
vation.  And  in  addition  to  such  expressions  as  flaffdsla  TOL> 
$£oD,  iq  xawq  dtaJdyxr},  which,  in  different  respects,  indicate 
the  design  and  character  of  the  change  to  be  introduced,  and 
which  have  already  been  considered,  there  is  a  class  of  ex 
pressions  pointing  also  to  the  change  in  question,  but  with  a 
more  special  respect  to  its  renovating  character.  There  are 
altogether  four  of  these  terms,  which,  while  they  form  a  sort 
of  whole,  must  yet  be  considered  separately,  in  order  to  obtain 
a  correct  idea,  both  of  their  distinctive  meanings,  and  of  the 
relation  in  which  they  stand  to  each  other. 


I.  The  first  in  order  of  the  terms  referred  to  is  /jter 
which  need  not  detain  us  long.  The  verb  meets  us  at  the 
very  threshold  of  the  Gospel,  in  the  Baptist's  call  of  prepara 
tion  for  the  kingdom  —  /^srocvos^rs  —  which  was  afterwards  also 
taken  up  by  our  Lord.  The  first  and  most  immediate  change, 
which  was  required  of  men  in  expectation  of  the  Lord's  ap 
pearance  and  kingdom,  was  an  altered  state  of  thought  and 
purpose  in  regard  to  things  spiritual  and  divine;  and  to  im 
press  the  necessity  of  this  more  deeply  upon  the  minds  of  all, 
the  call  to  enter  into  it  was  coupled  with  an  administration  of 
baptism  —  a  baptism  e/c  fJ-ZTdvotav.  Even  after  the  personal 
ministry  of  Christ  was  finished,  and  He  had  left  the  work  to 
be  prosecuted  among  men  by  his  apostles,  the  call  was  still 
the  same;  /j.sravo'jcraTe  zai  flaTmffdiJTco  was  the«closing  and 
practical  point  of  St.  Peter's  address  to  the  multitudes  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost;  and  in  St.  Paul's  brief  summary  of  the 


RENOVATION  ACCOMPLISHED  BY  THE  GOSPEL.  853 

Gospel  he  everywhere  preached  the  first  article  named  is  -rp 
ere  Osbv  p.%rdyotav  (Acts  xx.  21.)  In  all  these  passages,  it  is 
fjtsTdvoea  or  the  cognate  verb,  which  is  employed,  not  fierafil* 
/£.'«  and  ftera/ji&o/JLat;  and  this,  no  doubt,  because  the  former 
more  significantly  and  correctly  indicated  the  change  intend 
ed  than  the  latter.  Both,  indeed,  by  etymology  and  usage 
fjLsrdvoea  points  more  to  the  change  itself  in  thought  and  pur 
pose,  while  pjerapLiXetOL  fixes  attention  chiefly  on  the  concern 
or  regret,  which  the  consideration  of  the  past  has  awakened. 
Of  itself,  /jLSTdvoea  expresses  nothing  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
change,  in  what  particular  direction  taken,  or  how  far  in  that 
direction  carried:  this  is  left  to  be  determined  by  the  con 
nexion,  or  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  In  the  New  Testa 
ment  it  is  always  used  in  a  good  sense,  and  in  reference  to  a 
sincere  practical  reformation  of  mind  and  conduct.  Not  this, 
however,  in  the  aspect  of  a  change  wrought  by  the  power  of 
God,  but  rather  in  its  relation  to  human  responsibilities,  as 
an  amendment  that  men  are  bound  to  aim  at  and  strive  after; 
hence  the  verb  is  used  in  the  imperative;  the  thing  to  be  done 
is  bound  as  an  obligation  upon  men's  consciences.  The  other 
verb,  pt$Tafjt£%Ofjtae9  is  never  so  used — the  thought  it  expresses 
being  a  matter  of  suffering  rather  than  of  action,  the  recoil  of 
feeling  or  inward  sorrow  and  dissatisfaction  which  rushes  upon 
the  soul's  consciousness,  when  a  past  course  of  transgression 
is  seen  in  its  true  light.  Whenever  the  fjterdifoea  is  of  the 
right  description,  there  will  always,  of  necessity,  be  something 
of  this  sort;  since  it  is  impossible  for  the  mind  to  turn  from 
the  love  and  practice  of  sin,  to  even  the  heartfelt  desire  after 
righteousness,  without  a  certain  degree  of  sorrow  and  remorse. 
But,  from  the  varieties  that  exist  in  human  temperaments,  and 
the  diversified  effects  apt  to  be  produced  by  the  circumstances 
of  life,  no  definite  measure  or  uniform  rule  can  be  laid  down 
in  this  respect;  there  may  be  considerably  less  of  such  con 
scious  and  painful  regret  in  some  cases  than  in  others,  where 
the  change  is  alike  genuine ;  and  there  may  also  be  a  good 
deal  of  it  where  there  is  no  actual  jnerduota — the  recoil  of  feel 
ing  passing  away  without  leading  to  any  permanent  result. 
Accordingly  it  is  not  the  fjie-a/jtslsca,  but  the  p*rdi>ot&)  which 


854  TERMS  INDICATIVE  OF  THE 

is  indispensably  required  of  those  who  would  find  a  place  in 
the  Messiah's  kingdom — a  /isTdisota,  as  is  expressed  in  2  Cor. 
vii.  10,  e/c  ffatTqpi.av  dfji£Ta/jistyToz9  a  repentance  unto  salva 
tion  not  to  be  repented  of. 

The  word  repentance,  however,  as  is  evident  from  the  pre 
ceding  remarks,  is  but  an  imperfect  synonym  for  /j-sravota:,  it 
does  not  sufficiently  distinguish  between  this  and  fierafjisXeia 
in  the  respects  wherein  they  differ,  but  gives  a  partial  indica 
tion  of  the  import  of  both.  As  commonly  understood,  it  points 
fully  as  much  to  the  sorrow  or  regret  which  ensues  upon  a 
proper  change  of  mind,  as  to  the  change  itself.  Yet  we  have 
no  other  word  that  can  fitly  take  its  place;  for,  though  refor 
mation  or  amendment  may  seem  more  closely  to  correspond 
with  the  original,  and  have  been  formally  proposed  as  a  better 
rendering,  they  carry  the  thoughts  too  much  outward  to  meet 
with  general  approval  as  a  substitute  for  repentance.  It  is 
the  excellence  of  this  last,  as  a  translation  of  /jterdyoea,  that 
however  otherwise  defective,  it  points  inward,  and  marks  the 
state  of  the  soul — not  merely  of  the  outward  behaviour — as 
different  from  what  it  formerly  was:  it  is  expressive  of  a 
changed  action  of  the  heart  in  respect  to  sin  and  holiness; 
only  it  leaves  the  action  in  a  state  of  incompleteness,  as  if  it 
had  respect  merely  to  the  evil  perceived  to  have  existed  in  the 
past.  It  is  right,  however,  as  far  as  it  goes.  lie  who  repents 
has  come  to  see  that  to  be  evil  which  he  previously  loved  and 
followed  as  good ;  and  it  is  only  necessary  to  think  of  this  al 
tered  bent  of  mind,  as  taking  a  direction  toward  the  future 
equally  with  the  past,  in  order  to  find  in  the  term  repentance, 
which  is  used  to  express  it,  a  fair  representation  of  the  New 
Testament  /y.sravor«. 

The  call  to  this  /^ravo^a,  as  necessary  for  admission  into 
the  Messiah's  kingdom,  proceeds  on  the  existence  of  a  state  of 
alienation  and  disorder  in  respect  to  the  things  of  God;  it 
implies,  that  the  vo^'//«r«,  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  mind, 
have  gone  in  the  wrong  direction,  and  must  be  turned  back 
upon  the  right  objects.  As  a  people  the  Jews  were  in  such  a 
state  when  the  call  was  originally  addressed  to  them ;  arid, 
notwithstanding  the  call,  they,  for  the  most  part,  continued  to 


RENOVATION  ACCOMPLISHED  BY  THE  GOSPEL.  355 

abide  in  it.  In  respect  to  the  state  itself,  however,  there  was 
nothing  singular  in  their  case;  the  same  alienation  of  heart 
belongs  naturally  to  every  individual,  and  the  spiritual  change, 
or  conversion,  which  consists  in  its  abandonment,  is  the  one 
door-way  for  all  into  the  kingdom.  The  great  question — when 
once  the  heart  has  begun  to  grapple  in  earnest  with  the  Di 
vine  call — is  how  the  change  is  to  be  effected?  It  is  man's 
duty  and  interest  to  have  it  done;  for  till  it  is  done,  he  is  an 
enemy  of  God,  a  child  of  perdition;  and  to  bestir  himself  to 
the  task  of  reformation  is  his  immediate  and  paramount  con 
cern.  Eut  if  in  reality  he  does  so,  he  will  presently  find  that 
other  powers  than  his  own  are  needed  for  the  end  in  view;  he 
can  himself  see  the  necessity  for  the  change,  can  think  with 
sorrow  and  remorse  of  the  errors  of  the  past,  can  anticipate 
with  dread  the  dangers  of  the  future,  can  wish  and  pray  that 
it  were  otherwise  with  him — but  nothing  comes  to  perfection, 
unless  the  effort  to  convert  bring  the  soul  into  contact  with 
the  regenerating  grace  of  God,  and  make  it  conscious  of  a 

vital  influence  from  above. 

• 

II.  It  is  this  second,  but  most  important  stage  in  the  pro 
cess,  that  is  marked  in  the  next  term — xcdejjeveffja,  or  rege 
neration.  Considered  doctrinally,  either  of  these  terms  might 
be  made  to  include  the  other,  and  the  one  or  the  other  might 
indifferently  be  put  first.  Regeneration  might  be  represented 
as  necessary  to  conversion,  and  determining  what  belongs  to 
it;  since  it  is  only  when  the  Divine  element  implied  in  rege 
neration  works  upon  the  soul,  that  the  conversion  it  undergoes 
is  sufficiently  deep  and  earnest  to  be  lasting.  On  the  other 
hand,  conversion,  if  viewed  in  its  entire  compass  and  perfect 
ed  results,  must  be  made  to  comprehend,  as  well  the  regene 
rating  grace  that  effects  the  change,  as  the  desires  and  strug 
gles  of  the  soul,  while  travailing  in  birth  for  its  accomplish 
ment.  But,  viewed  in  the  order  of  nature,  and  also  as  com 
monly  represented  in  Scripture,  the  ij.=rdvoca,  or  conversion, 
must  be  placed  first;  for  it  is  with  this  that  man's  responsi 
bilities  have  immediately  to  do:  and  it  is  in  addressing  him 
self  to  the  things  connected  with  it,  that  he  is  driven  out  of 


356  TERMS  INDICATIVE  OF  THE 

himself,  and  brought  to  surrender  himself  to  the  working  of 
that  Divine  power  on  which  he  depends  for  the  necessary  re 
sult.  Scripture  never  puts  regeneration,  or  what  is  implied 
in  regeneration,  before  conversion ;  but  it  does  press  the  work 
of  conversion,  as  in  some  sense  prior  to  the  possession  of  a  re 
generated  state: — as  in  the  original  call  of  the  Baptist  to  re 
pent,  or  be  converted,  that  men  might  be  prepared  for  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit;  or  in  St.  Peter's  address  to  the  inhabi 
tants  of  Jerusalem,  exhorting  them  to  convert  and  be  baptized, 
that  they  might  receive  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  Of  course,  when 
so  represented,  conversion  is  to  be  understood  as  spoken  of 
only  in  respect  to  its  initial  stages,  and  as  a  work  demanding 
men's  earnest  application;  in  which  respect  it  may  be  said 
to  "precede  regeneration,  and  to  be  the  condition  and  qualifi 
cation  for  it;"1 — if  by  condition  and  qualification  we  under 
stand  simply  that  without  which,  on  the  sinner's  part,  he  has 
no  valid  reason  to  expect  the  further  and  higher  good  implied 
in  regeneration.  And  there  is  undoubtedly  this  further  dif 
ference  implied  in  the  terms  themselves,  that,  while  conversion 
is  a  change  of  mind  which,  so  far  as  the  mind  that  experiences 
it  is  concerned  may  possibly  change  again,  regeneration  is  a 
change  of  state,  a  new  being — and  so,  we  may  say,  carries  the 
idea  of  fixedness  and  perpetuity  in  its  bosom. 

The  term  itself  -ahffsvsffla,  which  exactly  answers  to  our 
regeneration,  is  found  only  twice  in  the  New  Testament  (Matt. 
xix.  28 ;  Titus  iii.  5,)  and  in  the  second  alone  of  the  two  cases, 
has  it  respect  to  spiritual  renovation.  There  are,  however, 
various  other  expressions  which  are  employed  to  indicate  the 
same  thing.  In  point  of  time,  the  first  was  that  used  by  our 
Lord  in  His  conversation  with  Nicodemus — one  also  of  the 
most  explicit — in  which  he  declared  the  necessity  for  every 
one  who  would  enter  His  kingdom,  of  being  born  again. 
*AvcoOsy  fzwrfl7tvat  is  the  expression  used,  and  is  most  exactly 
rendered,  perhaps,  born  afresh — but  obviously  all  one  as  to 
meaning  with  r.dhv  ^^.vvrfl^at  or  flvzcrdat',  for  both  alike  in 
dicate  a  kind  of  starting  anew  into  being,  or  re-entering  upon 
life,  in  some  new  and  higher  sense.  In  the  explanations  given 

1  Mozley  on  Baptismal  Regeneration,  p.  58. 


RENOVATION  ACCOMPLISHED  BY  THE  GOSPEL.  357 

immediately  after  by  our  Lord,  it  is  connected  with  water 
and  the  Spirit — with  the  Spirit  alone,  however,  as  the  effective 
agent;  for  He  calls  it  "a  birth  of  the  Spirit,"  as  contradis 
tinguished  from  a  birth  of  the  flesh  (ver.  6 ;)  and,  after  re 
ferring  for  illustration  to  the  somewhat  similar  operation  of 
the  wind  in  nature,  He  sums  up  by  saying,  "  So  is  every  one 
that  is  born  of  the  Spirit"  (ver.  8.)  The  Evangelist  John 
himself,  ch.  i.  13,  says  of  all  genuine  believers,  Ix  6zoi>  lyevvq- 
drjGav,  they  were  born  of  God,  and  that  in  a  manner  different 
from  every  form  of  natural  generation.  So  again  in  his  first 
Epistle,  ch.  v.  4,  the  believer,  on  account  of  his  faith,  is  "born 
of  God."  In  1  Pet.  i.  23,  and  Jas.  i.  18,  the  new  birth  is 
asserted  equally  of  all  Christians,  and  ascribed  directly  to 
God,  but  connected  instrumentally  with  the  operation  of  the 
word  (Sea  ),6foo,  or  Xoyto  dAydslaz.)  So,  still  further,  St.  Paul, 
who  not  only  designates  believers  once  and  again  "new 
creatures"  (2  Cor.  v.  17;  Gal.  vi.  15;)  but  in  the  passage 
already  referred  to,  Titus  iii.  5,  characterizes  the  change  that 
passes  on  them,  when  they  become  true  Christians,  as  a  rege 
neration.  The  whole  passage  runs  thus :  "  After  that  the  kind 
ness  and  love  toward  man  (ydavdpantca)  of  our  Saviour  God 
(TO~J  ff(i)T9jtoozitjfjLaJv  Ozo~j)  appeared;  not  by  works  of  righteous 
ness  which  we  did  (lirotytrafjiev,)  but  according  to  His  mercy 
He  saved  us — dea  Jtourpou  nafcffeveffioLZ  xai  duaxatvaxreax; 
7tV£'jfj.o.Toz  6.floD — through  washing  (or  laver)  of  regeneration 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  whole  of  these  passages  describe  in  terms  substantially 
alike,  the  spiritual  change  which  passes  over  those  who  become 
Christ's  true  people;  differing  only  in  connecting  it,  some 
more  immediately  with  the  word,  understood  and  received  in 
faith,  others  with  the  baptismal  font  or  water.  As  this  con 
nexion  can  only  be  of  a  subordinate  and  instrumental  kind, 
it  does  not  affect  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself,  which  must  be 
determined  by  the  plain  import  of  the  language  employed 
concerning  it.  But  the  language,  in  its  plain  import,  un 
doubtedly  expresses  an  actual  change — a  new  birth ;  not  the 
mere  capacity  for  such,  but  its  realized  possession.  Were 
this  xajsffsvsffia  any  thing  short  of  a  work  of  God,  brought 


358  TERMS  INDICATIVE  OF  THE 

into  actual  existence  in  the  case  of  the  person  who  is  the  sub 
ject  of  it,  the  term  would  be  an  entire  misnomer,  such  as  we 
cannot  conceive  to  have  a  place  in  the  volume  of  inspiration. 
But  this  becomes  still  more  certain,  and  is  established  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt,  when  along  with  the  natural  import  of 
the  language  we  couple  what  is  said  of  those,  who  have  under 
gone  the  regenerating  change.  "He  that  is  born  of  God,'5 
says  the  Apostle  John,  "doth  not  commit  sin,  for  his  seed 
remaineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin  because  he  is  born  of 
God."  And,  he  adds,  "in  this  the  children  of  God  are  mani 
fest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil;  whosoever  doeth  not  right 
eousness  is  not  of  God."  (1  John  iii.  9,  10.)  In  like  man 
ner  St.  Paul  describes  the  sons  of  God  as  those,  who  are  led 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  declares  that  if  any  have  not  this 
Spirit  they  are  none  of  His  (Rom.  viii.  9,  14.)  Not  only  so, 
but  he  characterizes  them,  on  the  ground  of  their  regeneration, 
as  dead  to  sin,  risen  again  with  Christ  to  walk  in  newness  of 
life,  and  already  sitting  together  with  Him  in  heavenly  places 
(Rom.  vi.  4;  Eph.  ii.  6;  Col.  ii.  12.)  The  apostles  of  our 
Lord  can  no  longer  be  regarded  as  persons,  who  used  great 
plainness  of  speech,  or  even  gave  intelligible  utterance  to  their 
thoughts,  if  such  expressions  were  employed  by  them  to  denote 
any  thing  else  than  an  actual  change  from  death  to  life,  from 
sin  to  holiness; — if  nothing  more  was  meant,  for  example, 
than  the  bestowal  of  some  mysterious  gift  or  capacity,  which 
might  be  held  by  the  worst  in  common  with  the  best  of  men — 
by  one  who  continues  practically  a  child  of  the  devil,  as  well 
as  by  him  who  breathes  the  spirit  and  does  the  works  of  a  child 
of  God.  "Such  a  monstrous  perversion  of  language,"  it  has 
been  justly  said,  "would  never  approve  itself  to  any  one,  who 
did  not  come  to  this  subject  with  his  mind  pre-occupied  with 
a  particular"  view.  But  it  is  in  vain,  that  Scripture  is  plain 
and  express  to  the  effect,  that  the  Divine  gift  of  regeneration 
is  actual  holiness,  so  long  as  men  are  pre-occupied  with  an 
idea,  that  actual  holiness  cannot  be  a  Divine  gift.  They  will 
go  on  to  the  last,  not  seeing  the  plainest  assertions  of  Scrip 
ture  as  to  the  nature  of  regeneration."1 

1  Mozley  on  Baptismal  Regeneration,  pp.  29,  30. 


RENOVATION  ACCOMPLISHED  BY  THE  GOSPEL.     359 

It  can  serve  no  good  purpose,  therefore,  to  dwell  longer  on 
this  aspect  of  the  matter;  since  exegetical  efforts  must  be 
altogether  misspent  in  endeavouring  to  impart  light  to  those 
who  cannot  afford  to  see.  But  in  regard  to  the  point  of  the 
instrumental  relationship  of  regeneration  to  the  Divine  ordi 
nances,  we  may  remark,  that  while  it  is  specially  and  fre 
quently  connected  with  baptism,  it  is  not  connected  with  that 
ordinance  alone;  the  Word  of  God  equally  shares  in  the 
honour.  It  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  when  our  Lord  speaks 
of  being  born  of  water  and  spirit,  and  when  St.  Paul  couples 
the  laver  with  regeneration,  and  represents  believers  as  being 
buried  and  rising  again  with  Christ,  a  close  relationship  is 
established  between  Christian  baptism  and.  spiritual  regenera 
tion.  But  there  are  other  passages  referred  to  above,  which 
equally  connect  it  with  the  word  of  the  Gospel,  of  which  also 
it  is  said  generally,  that  it  is  "the  power  of  God  to  salvation 
to  every  one  that  believeth," — that  it  is  "quick,  powerful,  and 
sharper  than  a  two-edged  sword," — that  it  is  even  "spirit  and 
life."  Nothing  stronger  than  this  is  said  of  baptism  in  respect 
to  regeneration ;  so  that  the  relationship  of  baptism  to  the 
spiritual  change  is  by  no  means  exclusive;  and  as  the  change 
itself  is  inward  and  vital,  neither  baptism  nor  the  word  can 
have  more  than  a  subordinate  and  instrumental  relation  to  it. 
As  to  efficacious  power,  it  is  "the  spirit  that  quickeneth," — 
not,  however,  apart  from  the  ordinances,  but  in  connexion 
with  their  instrumentality;  nor  yet  by  indissoluble  union  and 
invariable  efficiency  through  these,  but  in  such  manner  and 
ways  as  seem  good  to  Him  who  quickeneth  whom  He  will.  It 
is  enough  for  us  to  know,  that  in  this  spiritual  birth,  as  in  the 
natural,  the  internal  links  itself  with  the  external,  the  Divine 
with  the  human;  so  that  if  the  word  is  honestly  handled,  and 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  believingly  received  and  used,  the 
spiritual  effect  will  infallibly  result.  When  so  received  and 
used,  baptism  saves,  and  the  baptized  are  regenerated,  because 
the  manifested  grace  of  God  meets  with  a  suitable  recipiency, 
on  the  part  of  man ;  as  also  the  word  of  truth  brings  salva 
tion,  quickens  and  renews,  when  its  promises  of  grace  and 
blessing  are  rested  on  in  humble  faith.  But  abstract  the 


360  TERMS  INDICATIVE  OF  THE 

supposition,  -which  is  commonly  made  in  Scripture,  of  this 
faithful  and  honest  dealing  with  these  ordinances  of  God,  and 
there  is  nothing  of  regenerative  power  or  saving  effect  in 
either;  the  hearer  of  the  word  only  treasures  up  for  himself 
a  heavier  condemnation,  and  the  baptized,  so  far  from  rising 
to  newness  of  life,  remains,  even  when  baptized  by  an  apostle, 
in  "the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the  bond  of  iniquity." 

There  is,  doubtless,  so  far  a  difference  in  the  scriptural 
statements  referred  to,  as  to  the  relation  in  which  baptism 
and  the  word  respectively  stand  to  regeneration,  that  the  for 
mer,  being  a  symbolical  and  sealing  ordinance,  it  more  dis 
tinctly  and  personally  exhibits  the  things  connected  with  the 
soul's  regeneration.  It  has  somewhat  of  the  nature  of  a 
covenant  transaction,  in  which  the  individual  presents  himself, 
or  is  presented  by  others,  for  a  personal  participation  in  the 
regenerating  grace  exhibited  in  the  ordinance;  and  personally, 
or  through  others  for  him,  professes  to  accept  what  is  there 
offered  to  his  hand,  and  engages  to  act  accordingly.  Con 
templating  the  matter,  therefore,  as  an  honest  transaction — a 
transaction  in  which  the  human  subject  seems  truthfully  to 
respond  to  the  Divine  condescension  and  favour  shown  him — 
our  Lord  and  His  apostles  represent  baptism  as,  according  to 
its  true  idea,  an  instrument  or  channel  of  regeneration,  and 
speak  of  those  as  regenerate  persons  who  have  in  sincerity 
complied  with  it.  But  that  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
saying,  that  baptism,  simply  as  an  ordinance,  carries  regene 
ration  in  its  bosom,  or  that  all  who  have  passed  through  the 
outward  rite  are  regenerate.  Such  language  is  in  Scripture 
applied  only  to  those  who  have  actually  been  born  of  the 
Spirit,  or  who,  in  the  judgment  of  faith  and  charity,  may  be 
considered  to  have  been  so  born  again.  And  precisely  on 
account  of  regeneration  being  thus  essentially  a  Divine  work, 
in  which  man,  as  a  spiritual  being,  has  to  be  the  recipient, 
through  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  operating  vitally  within,  it  is 
not  directly  laid  as  an  obligation  upon  his  conscience.  He 
is  entreated  and  bound  to  do  the  things,  which,  in  their  full 
compass,  involve  it,  and  which  also  bring  him  into  immediate 
contact  with  the  living  agency  that  works  it;  but  for  the 


RENOVATION  ACCOMPLISHED  BY  THE  GOSPEL.  361 

change  itself — the  actual  regeneration  of  his  soul  to  God — he 
must  be  a  partaker  and  not  a  doer,  become  a  subject  of  the 
Spirit's  renewing  grace. 

III.  This  interconnexion,  however,  between  the  human  and 
the  Divine,  as  directly  related  to  men's  responsibilities,  comes 
out  in  the  next  term  of  the  series,  dvaxacvcoffez,  which  is  occa 
sionally,  though  not  very  frequently,  used  in  New  Testament 
Scripture.  In  the  passage  cited  from  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  it 
is  coupled  with  ncdeffeveffla,  and  placed  after  it,  as  denoting 
something  consecutive — a  carrying  forward  of  the  regeneration 
to  its  proper  completion;  which  again  brings  us  into  the  re 
gion  of  human  responsibility  and  active  working.  For,  while 
it  belongs  to  God,  through  the  internal  agency  of  His  Spirit, 
to  implant  the  principle  of  divine  life  in  the  soul,  it  belongs 
to  man — not  independently,  indeed,  and  as  at  his  own  hand, 
feut  in  connexion  with  the  promised  grace  of  God — to  guard, 
and  nourish  to  perfection  the  gift  conferred  upon  him.  Hence 
this  &v axo.lv a) an;  is  matter  of  express  command;  for  example, 
in  Eph.  iv.  23,  where  the  apostle  charges  believers — who  had 
already  "been  taught  as  the  truth  is  in  Jesus" — to  "renew 
themselves  (avavzo~jG6a.c)  in  the  spirit  of  their  mind;"  and  in 
Rom.  xii.  2,  they  are  called  to  be  transformed,  or  to  trans 
form  themselves,  in  the  renewing  of  their  mind  (TYJ  dva'/awcoGst 
Toi)  vooc-)  This  growing  renewal  of  mind  and  spirit,  which 
is  only  rendered  possible  by  a  preceding  regeneration,  it  is 
the  imperative  duty  of  every  believer  to  press  forward ;  it 
should  be  the  object  of  his  daily  watchings,  strivings,  and 
prayers,  which,  if  rightly  directed,  shall  have  for  their  great 
end  his  progressive  advancement  in  the  divine  life,  and  assi 
milation  to  the  image  of  his  Father  in  heaven. 

We  have  here  to  note  the  manner  in  which  the  new  life  of 
Christianity  has  formed  for  itself  a  language,  to  give  adequate 
expression  to  the  thoughts  and  aspirations  it  has  awakened. 
Of  the  two  words  just  mentioned,  one  of  them  dvaxa>v  coats, 
is  found  only  in  the  New  Testament,  as  is  also  the  verb  dva- 
xa&bto.  The  classical  word  for  expressing  a  somewhat  similar 
action  of  mind,  was  dvaxacvi^co^  which  occurs  in  Heb.  vi.  6, 
but  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  It  was,  we 
31 


302  TERMS  INDICATIVE  OF  THE 

may  conceive,  felt  to  be  too  feeble,  or,  from  its  ordinary  ap 
plication,  indicative  of  too  partial  and  defective  an  improve 
ment,  to  bring  out  the  Christian  sense  that  was  meant  to  be 
conveyed;  and  so  a  distinct  word,  of  the  same  root,  but  with 
a  different  termination,  was  brought  into  requisition.  The  other 
word,  Trodrffsveffla,  was,  indeed,  employed  by  heathen  writers, 
but  in  a  sense  so  inferior,  that  it  may  be  said  to  have  become 
instinct  with  new  meaning,  when  turned  in  a  Christian  di 
rection.  As  employed  elsewhere,  it  expresses  such  renova 
tions  as  take  place,  from  time  to  time,  within  the  natural 
sphere,  and  on  the  same  line  of  things  with  itself.  Thus 
Cicero,  on  the  close  of  his  exile,  and  referring  to  his  resto 
ration  to  honour  and  dignity,  speaks  of  hanc  nafcffevealau 
nostram  (Ad  Attic,  vi.  6.)  In  like  manner,  Josephus  applies 
the  word  to  that  political  resuscitation,  which  was  granted  to 
his  people  and  country,  on  the  return  from  the  Babylonish 
captivity  (Ant.  xi.  3, 9.)  Marcus  Antoninus  and  the  Stoics  ge 
nerally  designated  the  revivals,  which,  at  shorter  or  longer 
intervals,  occur  in  the  constitution  and  order  of  earthly  things, 
and  which  they  believed  would  ultimately  become  fixed,  rr^ 
7rsf)fOO!xr^  7zahfys.vs.a't.a.v  rcov  O)MV,  the  periodical  regeneration 
of  the  world.  And  approaching  a  step  nearer,  though  basing 
itself  on  a  fanciful  foundation,  it  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Py 
thagoreans,  as  we  learn  from  Plutarch  (De  Em.  Cat.  i.  7) — 
part  of  their  general  doctrine  of  the  transmigration  of  souls — 
that  there  was  a  -a^rff^zoia  to  each  particular  person  when 
his  soul  returned  to  the  body,  and  again  made  its  appearance 
on  the  theatre  of  an  earthly  existence.  From  such  applica 
tions  of  the  word,  one  sees  at  a  glance  what  an  elevation  was 
given  to  it  when  it  entered  into  the  sphere  of  Christian  ideas, 
and  came  to  denote  that  high  moral  renovation,  which  Christ 
ever  seeks  to  accomplish  in  His  people — the  formation  in  them 
of  a  life  fashioned  after  the  life  of  God.  Here  we  find  our 
selves  in  another  region  than  that  of  nature's  feebleness  and 
corruption;  the  supernatural  mingles  with  the  natural;  and 
the  earthly  in  man's  being  is  transformed,  so  as  to  receive  the 
tone  and  impress  of  the  heavenly. 

But  the  nadcffwsffla  of  the  gospel,  and  its  attendant  dva- 


RENOVATION  ACCOMPLISHED  BY  THE  GOSPEL.     863 

tz-,  do  not  stop  here ;  while  commencing  with  the  soul 
of  the  individual  believer,  they  thenceforth  proceed  to  other 
operations  and  results.  The  internal  renovation  is  but  the 
beginning  of  a  process,  which  is  to  extend  far  and  wide — to 
spread  with  regenerating  power  through  all  the  relations  and 
departments  of  social  life — to  defecate  and  transfigure  the 
corporeal  frame  itself  into  the  fit  habitation  of  an  immortal 
spirit — yea,  and  embrace  the  whole  domain  of  external  nature, 
which  it  will  invest  with  the  imperishable  glory  of  a  new  cre 
ation.  It  was  this  more  extended  and  comprehensive  appli 
cation  of  the  word  Tzalrff^zaia,  which  was  made  by  our  Lord 
in  Matt.  xix.  28,  when  He  gave  assurance  to  the  disciples  of 
the  immortal  honour  and  dignity  that  was  to  be  their  position 
in  the  closing  issues  of  His  kingdom,  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
that  ye  who  have  followed  Me,  in  the  regeneration  (Trahrfeve- 
aia) — when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on  the  throne  of  His 
glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel."  It  was  a  prevalent  opinion  among  the  Fa 
thers,  that  by  regeneration  here,  our  Lord  pointed  explicitly 
to  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Thus  Augustine,  De  Civ. 
Dei.  xx.  5,  "  When  he  says,  in  the  regeneration,  beyond  doubt 
He  wishes  to  be  understood  thereby  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead;  for  thus  shall  our  flesh  be  regenerated  through  incor- 
ruption,  even  as  our  soul  has  been  regenerated  by  faith." 
To  the  like  effect  Jerome,  who  says  on  the  passage,  "In  the 
regeneration,  that  is,  when  the  dead'  shall  rise  incorruptible 
from  corruption."  Gregory,  Theophylact,  Euthymius,  and 
others,  follow  in  the  same  line.  It  is,  however,  too  narrow  a 
reference  to  give  to  our  Lord's  words.  The  resurrection  of 
the  body  is,  doubtless,  implied  in  what  He  says ;  for  when  the 
Son  of  Man  sits  upon  the  throne  of  His  glory,  or  is  manifested 
in  His  kingly  state,  the  saints  shall  certainly  have  been  raised 
up  to  sit  with  Him ;  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  apostle, 
"  When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall  appear,  then  shall  we 
also  appear  with  Him  in  glory."  Undoubtedly,  too,  the  re 
surrection  may  be  fitly  designated  a  regeneration ;  as  it  shall 
be  in  the  most  emphatic  sense  a  renovating  of  the  old,  casting 
it  entirely  into  a  fresh  mould,  and  giving  it  a  kind  of  second 


364:  TERMS  INDICATIVE  OF  THE 

birth,  unspeakably  better  than  the  first.  So,  the  apostle  Paul 
in  effect,  though  not  in  express  terms,  calls  it,  when  in  Rom. 
viii.  23,  he  speaks  of  the  general  body  of  believers  groaning 
in  themselves,  and  "  waiting  for  the  adoption,  the  redemption 
of  the  body;"  as  if  their  proper  filiation  only  began  then,  and 
not  till  it  took  place  did  they  fairly  enter. into  the  state  and 
heritage  of  the  sons  of  God.  Then  only  indeed  shall  they 
reach  it  in  its  completeness,  or  in  respect  to  their  entire  per 
sonality.  The  regeneration  is  already  theirs;  it  is  theirs  from 
the  first  moment  of  their  spiritual  life,  in  so  far  as  their  souls 
are  concerned,  but  still  only  as  in  a  mystery;  since  the  cor 
poreal  and' visible  part  of  their  natures  continues  as  before, 
in  the  frailty  and  corruption  of  the  fall.  At  the  resurrection, 
however,  this  anomalous  state  of  things  shall  be  terminated ; 
the  old  man  shall  in  this  respect  also  be  exchanged  for  the 
new ;  and  the  children  of  the  regeneration  shall  at  last  look 
like  their  state  and  destiny — they  shall  possess  the  visible  seal 
of  their  adoption,  in  the  redemption  of  their  bodies  from  the 
law  of  mortality  and  corruption. 

On  these  accounts,  the  resurrection  of  the  body  may  fitly 
be  called  a  Tcafoffeveffla;  it  is  certainly  to  be  included  in  the 
general  renovation,  which  the  Lord  will  introduce  at  the  pro 
per  time;  but  it  is  this  general  renovation  itself,  not  simply 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  which  is  to  be  understood  as 
pointed  to  in  the  declaration  of  our  Lord.  The  ncdrffeveffla 
there  mentioned  is  the  bringing  in  of  what  is  elsewhere  called 
the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth,  the  constitution  of  every 
thing  after  a  new  and  higher  pattern ;  in  consequence  of  which, 
that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away,  evil  in  every  form 
shall  be  abolished,  and  universal  peace,  harmony,  arid  per 
fection  established.  For,  such  is  the  proper  issue  and  con 
summation  of  Christ's  work,  who,  as  the  Lord's  anointed,  has 
received  from  the  Father  the  heritage  of  all  things,  and  re 
ceived  it,  not  to  retain  them  in  their  state  of  corruption  and 
disorder,  but  to  rectify  and  bless  them ;  so  that,  throughout 
the  entire  domain,  there  shall  be  nothing  to  hurt  and  offend, 
and  all  shall  reflect  the  spotless  glory  of  their  Divine  Head. 


RENOVATION  ACCOMPLISHED  BY  THE  GOSPEL.  365 

IV.  The  regeneration  in  this  large  and  general  sense  is 
much  of  the  same  import  as  another  word — the  last  we  have 
to  notice  in  this  connexion — dTroxardcrTafftz*  The  noun  oc 
curs,  indeed,  only  once  with  reference  to  the  work  of  Christ 
(Acts  iii.  21;)  but  the  verb  is  found,  on  two  occasions,  with  a 
somewhat  similar  reference.  In  Matt.  xvii.  11,  our  Lord 
replied  to  a  question  respecting  Elias,  "Elias  indeed  cometh 
and  restoreth  (or  shall  restore — axoxaOtaTavst,  Mark ;  aTtoxa- 
ra(TT7](Tst,  Matt.)  all  things.  It  was  the  purpose  or  destina 
tion  for  which  John  came  that  Christ  here  speaks  of;  His 
mission  was  of  a  restorative  nature,  being  appointed  in  respect 
to  a  people,  who  had  gone  away  backward,  and  were  practi 
cally  in  a  state  of  alienation,  first  from  the  God  of  their  fa 
thers,  and  then  from  these  fathers  themselves.  To  turn  again 
this  tide  of  degeneracy,  and  bring  the  hearts  of  the  people 
into  a  friendly  relationship  as  well  to  God,  as  to  their  pious 
ancestors,  was  the  special  calling  of  this  new  Elias ;  he  came 
to  the  intent,  that  He  might  restore  all  things  to  their  normal 
state  of  allegiance  to  God,  and  mutual  respondency  between 
parent  and  child  (Luke  i.  16,  17.)  But  in  respect  to  the 
event,  all  was  marred  by  the  perverseness  and  carnality  of 
the  people;  they  frustrated  the  grace  of  God,  and  did  to  the 
Elias  "whatever  they  listed."  In  this  case,  it  was  plainly 
but  a  provisional  moral  restoration  that  was  meant  to  be  ac 
complished;  but  even  this  was  arrested  in  its  course,  and  only 
in  a  very  partial  manner  reached  its  end. 

Still  more  immediately,  however,  in  connexion  with  Mes 
siah's  work,  we  find  the  expression  used  by  the  apostles  after 
the  resurrection,  when  they  asked  Christ,  "Lord,  dost  Thon 
at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ($c  lu  rw  ypbvu) 
TOUTOJ  o~  0X0.6  c&Tdvzct;  rrp  ftaadeiav  TW  'fopcajfyV  The  answer 
returned  simply  conveyed  a  rebuke  for  their  too  prying  curi 
osity  regarding  the  future,  and  an  instruction  as  to  present 
duty:  "It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  and  seasons,  which 
the  Father  has  put  in  His  own  power ;  but  ye  shall  receive 
power,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  comes  upon  you,"  etc  In  short, 
there  was  to  be  no  d.noyjj.ro.araat^  such  as  they  were  looking 
for,  of  a  present  resuscitation  of  the  temporal  kingdom ;  and 

31*      ' 


366  TERMS  INDICATIVE  OF  THE 

for  themselves,  they  had  other  and  higher  things  to  mind, 
for  which  the  needed  power  was  shortly  to  be  conferred  on 
them  from  above.  They  were  not  on  this  account,  however, 
discharged  from  expecting  an  aTioxardaracfc^^ — only  it  was  to 
be  one  (as  they  themselves  soon  understood,)  which  carried  in 
its  bosom  the  elements  of  a  nobler  renovation — fresh  suc 
cessions  of  spiritual  revival  in  the  first  instance,  and  these 
culminating  at  last,  in  a  complete,  final  restitution.  So,  in  a 
comparatively  brief  period,  the  Apostle  Peter  gave  expression 
to  his  views,  and  showed  the  vast  moral  elevation  that  had 
been  imparted  to  him  by  the  descent  of  the  Spirit:  " Repent, 
therefore,  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out,  so  that  times  of  refreshing  may  come  (oxtoz  av  eWcovw 
xaepoc  cLyaip'j^toz)  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord;  and  He 
may  send  Jesus  Christ  that  before  was  preached  unto  you; 
whom  the  heaven  must  receive  until  the  times  of  restitution 
of  all  things  (a~oxaTd<JTO.(Jzcoz  Travrwv,)  of  which  (of  which 
times)  God  spake  by  the  mouth  of  His  holy  prophets,  since 
the  world  began  (or,  from  the  earliest  times.") 

The  slightest  inspection  may  convince  any  one,  that  this 
was  spoken  under  the  direction  of  a  far  more  enlightened  and 
elevating  impulse,  than  that  which  dictated  the  question ,  u  Wilt 
Thou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel?"  In  the 
one  case  there  is  a  manifest  savouring  of  the  things  of  the 
flesh,  in  the  other,  of  those  of  the  Spirit;  the  first  thoughts 
were  characterized  by  a  narrow  exclusiveness,  and  a  desire 
for  some  sort  of  temporal  ascendency,  while  in  the  latter  there 
is  a  noble  breathing  after  things  heavenly  and  divine,  a  just 
appreciation  of  the  spiritual  in  comparison  of  the  earthly,  and 
a  lively  expectation  of  the  complete  triumph  over  all  evil  yet 
to  be  effected  by  the  presence  and  power  of  the  glorified  Re 
deemer.  The  cbroxara0ra0Y:r  now  looked  and  longed  for  by 
the  apostles  was  nothing  short  of  a  general  and  thorough 
renovation — the  same,  that  prophets  had  from  the  first  been 
heralding,  when  they  pointed  to  the  glory  which  was  to  fol 
low  the  obedience  and  sufferings  of  the  Redeemer — a  re-es 
tablishment  of  the  original  order  and  blessedness  of  the  world, 
or  its  final  deliverance  frem  all  the  troubles  and  disorders  that 


RENOVATION  ACCOMPLISHED  BY  THE  GOSPEL.  367 

afflict  it,  and  along  therewith  its  elevation  to  a  higher  even 
than  its  primeval  condition.  But  the  general  carries  no  anta 
gonism  to  the  particular;  the  restitution  of  all  things  now 
hoped  for  should  also  be,  in  the  truest  sense,  the  restitution 
of  the  kingdom  to  Israel.  For,  in  Christ  all  that  is  really 
Israel's,  finds  its  proper  centre  and  its  ultimate  destination; 
where  He,  the  King  of  Zion  is,  there  is  Israel's  ascendency, 
Israel's  seed  of  blessing,  Israel's  distinctive  glory;  and  the 
best  and  highest  thing  for  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  is  to  share 
in  the  dominion  of  Christ,  and  with  him  to  possess  the  king 
dom. 

To  sum  up,  then,  in  regard  to  this  series  of  words  so  pecu 
liarly  indicative,  as  a  whole,  of  the  nature  and  tendency  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ: — The  generic  idea  of  renovation,  or  radical 
change  from  a  worse  to  a  better  state,  is  here  presented  to  our 
view  under  successive  stages  and  developments.  We  see  it 
beginning  in  the  region  of  the  inner  man — in  the  awakening 
of  a  sense  of  guilt  and  danger,  with  earnest  strivings  after 
amendment  (/jLsrdvoia?)  then,  through  the  operation  of  the 
grace  of  God,  it  discovers  itself  in  a  regenerated  frame  of  spi 
rit,  the  possession  of  an  essentially  new  spiritual  condition 
(i:cdrff£V£CFia ;)  this,  once  found,  proceeds  by  continual  advances 
and  fresh  efforts  to  higher  and  higher  degrees  of  spiritual  reno 
vation  (dvaxaluoMTiz ;)  while,  according  to  the  gracious  plan 
and  wise  disposal  of  God,  the  internal  links  itself  to  the  ex 
ternal,  the  renovation  of  soul  paves  the  way  for  the  purifica 
tion  of  nature,  until,  the  work  of  grace  being  finished,  and  the 
number  of  the  elect  completed,  the  bodies  also  of  the  saints 
shall  be  transformed,  and  the  whole  material  creation  shall 
become  a  fit  habitation  for  redeemed  and  glorified  saints  (6.7:0- 
xaT(i<7-a<Ttz.)  Vv^hat  a  large  and  divine-like  grasp  in  this  re 
generative  scheme !  How  unlike  the  littleness  and  superfici 
ality  of  man!  How  clearly  bespeaking  the  profound  insight 
and  far-reaching  wisdom  of  God !  And  this  not  merely  in  its 
ultimate  results,  but  in  the  method  also  and  order  of  its  pro 
cedure!  In  beginning  with  the  inner  man,  and  laying  the 
chief  stress  on  a  regenerated  heart,  it  takes  possession  of  the 
fountainhead  of  evil,  and  rectifies  that  which  most  of  all  requires 


368  PARASKEUE  AND  PASCHA 

the  operation  of  a  renewing  agency.  As  in  the  moral  sphere, 
the  evil  had  its  commencement,  so  in  the  same  sphere  are  the 
roots  planted  of  all  the  renovation,  that  is  to  develop  itself  in 
the  history  of  the  kingdom.  And  the  spiritual  work  once  pro 
perly  accomplished,  all  that  remains  to  be  done  shall  follow 
in  due  time;  Satan  shall  be  finally  cast  out;  and  on  the  ruins 
of  his  usurped  dominion,  the  glories  of  the  new  creation  shall 
shine  forth  in  their  eternal  lustre. 


SECTION  NINTH. 

ON  THE  USE  or  Paras7ceue  AND  Pasclia  IN  ST.  JOHN'S  ACCOUNT  OP 
OUR  LORD'S  LAST  SUFFERINGS;  AND  THE  QUESTION  THERE 
WITH  CONNECTED,  WHETHER  OUR  LORD  KEPT  HIS  LAST  PASS 
OVER  ON  THE  SAME  DAY  AS  THE  JEWS. 

IT  is  simply  in  connexion  with  this  question  respecting  the 
time  of  keeping  the  last  Passover,  that  the  use  of  the  words 
yrapctffxeurj  and  t:dff%a,  by  St.  John,  in  ch.  xviii.  and  xix.,  is 
involved  in  doubt,  or  assumes  an  aspect  of  importance.  And, 
as  we  are  firmly  persuaded  that  the  question  itself  has  mainly 
arisen  from  some  of  the  historical  circumstances  being  too 
little  regarded,  we  shall  commence  our  inquiry  by  taking  these 
in  their  order,  and  endeavouring  to  present  them  in  their  pro 
per  light. 

1.  The  first  thing  requiring  to  be  noted  is  the  determined 
purpose  formed  by  the  leading  men  in  Jerusalem  to  make  away 
•with  Jesus.  The  clear  revelations  He  had  given,  especially 
on  the  occasion  of  this  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  of  His  own  cha 
racter  and  kingdom,  and  the  unsparing  exposure  He  had 
made  of  their  ignorance,  carnality,  and  deserved  condemna 
tion,  had  brought  matters,  as  between  them  and  Him,  to  a 
crisis.  It  was  now  seen  that,  if  their  authority  was  to  stand, 
His  career  must  be  extinguished.  But,  in  their  project  for 
accomplishing  this,  two  points  of  special  moment  are  to  be 
noted.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  to  be  by  stratagem  (ly  ootyj, 
Matt.  xxvi.  4;  Mark  xiv.  1) — this  being,  as  they  naturally 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.  369 

conceived,  the  only  safe  course  for  them  to  adopt.  They  durst 
not  venture  on  an  open  assault,  as  Jesus  had  evidently  ac 
quired  great  fame,  had  come  up  to  the  feast  with  a  large  re 
tinue  of  followers,  and  by  His  miracles,  His  discourses,  and 
His  disinterested  life,  had  made  profound  impressions  upon 
many  hearts.  Against  such  a  person  it  would  have  been  a 
hazardous  thing  for  them  to  bring  a  formal  charge  of  impiety 
or  crime;  it  were  on  every  account  wiser  to  compass  their 
design  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin,  or  some  secret  plot,  which 
might  admit  of  their  remaining  in  the  background.  Then, 
this  stratagem  was  not  to  be  quite  immediately  put  in  force; 
not  till  after  the  feast.  This  is  expressly  noticed  in  two  of 
the  Evangelists  (Matt.  xxvi.  5;  Mark  xiv.  2;)  and  they  both 
assign  the  same  reason  for  the  delay — "lest  there  should  be 
an  uproar  among  the  people."  These  seemed  now  to  an  alarm 
ing  degree  won  to  Plis  side;  they  had  attended  Him  in 
crowds  from  Galilee;  they  had  even  borne  Him  in  triumph, 
and  with  every  demonstration  of  enthusiastic  joy,  as  King 
Messiah,  from  Mount  Olivet  into  the  heart  of  the  city;  and 
it  was  not  to  be  supposed  that  multitudes,  apparently  so  full 
of  confidence  in  their  leader,  and  so  ardently  devoted  to  His 
cause,  would  suffer  Him  to  be  openly  wronged,  without  exert 
ing  themselves  to  the  utmost  in  his  defence.  It  was,  there 
fore,  the  obvious  dictate  of  prudence  to  let  the  crowds  again 
disperse,  before  the  hand  of  violence  was  lifted  against  Jesus. 
2.  But  all  of  a  sudden  a  new  element  came  into  their  de 
liberations,  and  their  policy  took  another  form,  when  the 
treachery  of  Judas  discovered  itself,  offering  for  a  sum  of  mo 
ney  to  deliver  up  Jesus  into  their  hands.  The  precise  moment 
when  Judas  made  this  offer  to  them  is  not  stated.  It  must, 
however,  have  been  some  time  between  the  conclusion  of  those 
discourses,  in  which  the  Lord  had  so  plainly  exposed  and  de 
nounced  the  leading  Jews,  and  the  actual  execution  of  the 
treachery;  for  it  is  manifest  that  the  traitor  had  come  to  terms 
with  them  before  the  paschal  feast  had  actually  begun,  and 
yet  not  less  manifest  that  it  must  have  been  after  they  had 
formed  their  plan  not  to  proceed  against  Jesus  till  the  feast 
was  over.  Subsequently  to  this  resolution  on  their  part,  but 


370  PABASKEUE  AND  PASCHA 

prior  even  to  the  assignation  of  any  particular  time  or  place 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  purpose,  "he  sought  how  he 
might  conveniently  betray  Him"  (Mark  xiv.  11.)  The  pur 
pose  itself  doubtless  took  shape  in  the  mind  of  Judas,  and 
reached  the  point  of  action,  much  in  the  same  way  that  the 
Jewish  rulers  were  led  to  their  resolution  to  kill  Him.  From 
the  position  matters  had  now  assumed,  it  had  become  for  both 
alike  a  necessity  to  get  rid  of  Jesus:  His  presence  was  felt  to 
be  intolerable.  Indeed,  Judas,  in  his  state  of  mind  and  his 
procedure  toward  Jesus,  might  be  taken  for  a  representative 
among  the  twelve  of  those  Jewish  rulers ;  he  did  within  the 
narrower  sphere  what  they  did  in  the  larger  one— delivered 
up  the  Holy  One  of  God  to  His  adversaries;  on  which  ac 
count,  in  the  psalms  that  spake  before  concerning  the  treachery, 
the  individual  traitor  is  identified  with  the  whole  company  of 
faithless  men  who  were  to  take  the  part  of  violence  and  deceit 
(Ps.  Ixix.,  cix. ;  Acts  i.  16 — 20.)  Judas  had  undoubtedly,  at 
the  time  of  his  first  connexion  with  Christ,  been  known  as  a 
person  of  shrewd  intellect,  as  well  as  respectable  demeanour, 
most  probably  also  as  a  person  of  active  business  habits: — 
whence  the  charge  naturally  fell  to  him  of  managing  the  pe 
cuniary  concerns  of  the  company,  of  bearing  the  purse.  With 
such  natural  gifts  and  acquired  habits,  he  had  thought  he  dis 
cerned  enough  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  convince  him  that  this 
could  be  no  other  than  the  expected  Messiah;  but,  beyond 
doubt,  the  Messiah  of  an  earthly  cause  and  a  worldly  kingdom. 
And  as  the  hopes  of  advancement  in  this  direction  began  to 
give  way ;  as  the  plan  of  Jesus  more  fully  developed  itself, 
and  successive  revelations  of  coming  events  forced  on  the  mind 
of  Judas  the  conviction,  that  not  earthly  grandeur  or  political 
ascendency,  but  sacrifice,  self-denial,  peril,  and  shame,  were 
to  be  the  immediate  portion  of  those  who  espoused  the  cause 
of  Jesus,  then  the  spell  was  broken  to  his  calculating  and 
worldly  spirit.  He  not  only  became  depressed  and  sorrowful, 
like  the  others,  but  totally  unhinged:  his  only  distinct  motives 
for  embarking  In  the  enterprise  were  withdrawn  from  him ;  he 
must  be  done  with  the  concern.  Symptoms  of  this  recoil  had 
been  perceived  by  the  penetrating  eye  of  Jesus  about  a  twelve- 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.  371 

month  before  the  last  Passover,  which  led  Him  to  utter  the 
strong  expression,  that  of  those  He  had  chosen,  one  was  a 
devil  (John  vi.  70.)  It  was  only  now,  however,  that  the  full 
effect  was  produced.  The  repeated  intimations  which  Jesus 
had  recently  made  of  His  coming  death,  the  specific  assurance 
that  He  was  to  be  rejected  by  the  chief  priests  and  scribes, 
crucified  and  slain;  the  palpable  breach  that  took  place  be 
tween  Him  and  these  rulers  of  the  people  on  the  occasion  of 
His  public  entrance  into  Jerusalem,  with  the  discourses  subse 
quently  delivered;  still  more  recently  the  reproof  individually 
and  pointedly  addressed  to  Judas,  in  connexion  with  the  per 
sonal  anointing  at  Bethany,  and  the  fresh  allusion  then  also 
made  to  His  impending  death  and  burial: — all  these  follow 
ing  in  rapid  succession,  and  leaving,  at  length,  no  room  to 
doubt  that  a  catastrophe  was  at  hand,  consummated  the  process 
which  had  been  going  on  in  the  mind  of  Judas,  and  impelled 
him  to  adopt  a  course  of  decisive  action — to  resolve  on  being 
done  with  a  service  which  no  longer  possessed  his  sympathy 
or  his  confidence,  and  make  sure  of  his  interest  with  those 
that  had.  Thus  prompted  and  drawn,  he  secretly  threw  him 
self  into  the  camp  of  the  adversaries,  and  entered  into  terms 
with  them  for  the  betrayal  of  Jesus.1 

3.  But  this  unexpected  occurrence,  we  may  well  conceive, 
cast  a  new  light  upon  the  prospects  of  Christ's  adversaries  in 
Jerusalem,  and  naturally  led  to  a  remodelling  of  their  plans. 
The  discovery  that  one  of  His  bosom  friends  was  deserting 
Him,  as  if  he  had  seen  through  the  imposture,  and  was  even 
proffering  his  aid  to  the  accomplishment  of  their  aims,  could 
not  fail  to  beget  the  conviction,  that  the  cause  of  Jesus  was 
by  no  means  so  powerful,  nor  His  place  in  the  popular  esteem 
so  firmly  seated,  as  they  had  imagined.  They  now  began  to 
think  that  there  was  not  so  much  need  for  stratagem  and  de 
lay,  as  they  at  first  imagined;  nay,  that  their  best  chance  for 
accomplishing  the  desired  result,  was  by  a  bold  and  summary 

1  It  is  most  likely,  on  account  of  the  influence  exercised  on  the  mind  of 
Judas  by  what  took  place  at  Bethany,  that  the  Evangelists  Matthew  and. 
Mark  mention  it  in  immediate  connexion  with  the  purpose  of  Judas  to  be 
tray.  In  reality,  however,  it  occurred  before  several  of  the  last  discourses 
were  delivered,  and  six  days  previous  to  the  last  Passover,  John  xii.  1.  j 


372  PAEASKEUE  AND  PASCHA. 

procedure.  Most  heartily,  therefore,  did  they  close  with  the 
proposal  of  Judas,  and  for  the  stipulated  sum  of  thirty  pieces 
of  silver,  agree  to  act  in  concert  with  him.  This  circumstance, 
if  allowed  its  due  consideration,  and  followed  to  its  legitimate 
results,  will  be  found  sufficient  to  account  for  all  the  peculiari 
ties  and  apparent  inconsistencies  in  the  evangelical  narratives. 
It  first  of  all  led  the  Jewish  rulers  to  resolve  on  taking  action 
immediately,  the  moment  Judas  might  find  a  favourable  op 
portunity  for  effecting  the  betrayal.  And  it  led  our  Lord, 
who  was  perfectly  cognizant  of  what  was  proceeding  in  the 
camp  of  the  enemies,  to  pursue  a  course  at  the  very  com 
mencement  of  the  Passover,  which  left  Judas  no  alternative: 
he  must  either  act  promptly  that  very  night,  or  lose  the  op 
portunity  of  acting  at  all. 

4.  This  procedure,  then,  on  the  part  of  Christ,  is  the  point 
that  next  calls  for  notice.  In  compliance  with  His  own  in 
structions,  the  necessary  preparations  had  been  made  for 
holding  the  feast — an  upper  chamber  was  engaged,  and  the 
materials  requisite  for  the  feast  provided.  There  Jesus  met 
with  the  disciples  at  the  appointed  time — we  can  readily  sup 
pose  at  a  somewhat  earlier  hour  than  customary,  as  He  well 
foreknew  what  a  series  of  events  had  to  be  crowded  into  the 
remaining  hours  of  that  night.  The  period,  it  should  be  re 
membered,  for  eating  the  paschal  lamb,  was  left  somewhat 
indefinite.  The  lamb  itself  was  to  be  killed  any  time  between 
the  two  evenings,  (Ex.  xii.  G;  Lev.  xxiii.  5;)  that  is,  between 
the  ninth  and  eleventh  hour  by  the  Jewish  reckoning,  or 'the 
third  and  fifth  in  the  afternoon  by  ours,  (Joseph. Wars,  vii.  9, 3.) 
So  that,  as  our  Lord  had  special  reasons  for  making  the  hour 
as  early  as  possible,  we  may  warrantably  suppose  that  the  lamb 
was  killed  about  three  o'clock,  and  the  feast  entered  upon 
about  five,  or  shortly  after  it.  But  scarcely  had  Jesus  and 
His  disciples  begun  the  feast — it  was,  at  least,  only  in  pro 
gress,  after  the  solemn  service  of  the  washing  of  the  disciples' 
feet  had  been  performed,  (John  xiii.  1-22,) — when  Jesus,  with 
evident  emotion,  announced  that  one  of  them  should  betray 
Him. l  The  disciples,  as  might  be  supposed,  were  greatly 

1  Notwithstanding  the  positive  assertions  of  Meyer  to  the  contrary,  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  feast  mentioned  in  this  13th  ch.  of 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.         373 

stunned  by  the  announcement — for  a  moment  looked  at  one 
another — then  anxiously,  in  succession,  put  the  question, 
"Lord,  is  it  I?"  Judas  could  not  afford  to  appear  singular 
at  such  a  time,  perhaps  also  wished  to  learn  how  far  Jesus 
might  be  acquainted  with  the  secret,  and  so,  followed  the 
rest  in  putting  the  question.  The  reply  informed  him  that 
his  treachery  was  known ;  but  it  would  seem,  the  information 
was  so  conveyed,  as  to  be  intelligible  only  to  the  traitor  him 
self.  Hence,  still  revolving  the  matter,  and  anxious  to  attain, 
to  certainty  regarding  it,  Peter  beckoned  to  John,  who  lay 
next  to  Jesus,  to  the  intent  that  he  might  endeavour  to  ob 
tain  more  definite  information.  The  inquiry  was  evidently 

John,  at  which  our  Lord  washed  the  disciples'  feet,  was  the  same  as  that 
described  by  the  other  Evangelists  under  the  name  of  the  Passover.  The 
great  majority  of  commentators  are  agreed  on  this — however  they  differ  oil 
other  points.  Stier  justly  states,  that  the  supper  or  feast  here  mentioned^ 
from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  introduced,  was  manifestly  no  ordinary  sup 
per;  and  the  reference  to  it  again,  at  ch.  xxi.  20,  as  the  supper,  by  way  of 
eminence,  at  which  John  leaned  on  his  Master's  bosom,  confirms  the  view. 
A  still  further  confirmation  is  derived  from  the  evident  allusion,  in  Luke 
xxii.  27,  to  the  action  of  washing  the  disciples?  feet,  which  took  place  at  it, 
and  is  recorded  only  by  St.  John;  there,  however,  and  with  reference  to  it, 
our  Lord  says  Himself,  "I  am  among  you  as  one  that  serveth."  The  ex 
pression  of  St.  John,  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  rtpo  ir^  Eop-r'jjs  *ou 
rtas^a,  which  Meyer  so  strongly  presses  as  conclusively  showing  that  the 
circumstances  of  this  supper  were  prior  to  the  Passover,  and  that  our  Lord 
did  not  keep  the  Passover  at  all,  have  no  such  necessary  import.  It  is 
utterly  arbitrary  to  make  them  point  to  all  the  transactions  that  followed, 
and,  indeed,  against  the  most  natural  and  proper  sense.  The  Evangelist 
simply  tells  us,  that  before  the  Paschal  Feast,  at  which  the  things  concern 
ing  His  earthly  career  were  to  proceed  to  their  consummation,  had  actually 
arrived — before  that,  but  without  any  indication  of  how  long  before,  Jesus, 
being  cognizant  of  all  that  was  at  hand,  and  of  His  speedy  return  to  the 
Father,  having  loved  His  own,  and  still  loving  them,  was  resolved  to  give 
them  a  palpable  and  personal  proof  of  it,  by  washing  their  feet  before  the 
feast  properly  commenced.  So  substantially,  after  multitudes  of  earlier 
commentators,  Alford,  Stier,  Luthardt.  The  precise  period  of  washing, 
however,  is  wrongly  put  in  our  version,  by  the  words  in  ver.  2,  "and  supper 
being  ended;"  it  should  be,  "supper  having  come — "  for  it  is  quite  clear 
from  what  follows,  that  it  had  not  ended,  nor  even  in  any  proper  sense  be 
gun.  There  was,  at  most,  before  the  washing,  the  jtpoeo^iov  or  ante-sup 
per,  as  it  was  called,  from  which,  (ver.  4,)  Jesus  rose  and  went  about  the 
washing;  after  which  came  the  supper  itself,  the  Paschal  Feast. 

32 


374  PARASKEUE  AND  PASCHA 

made  by  John  in  a  whisper,  as  simply  between  himself  and 
Christ.  But  the  mode  adopted  by  our  Lord  in  giving  the 
reply,  of  presenting  a  sop  to  Judas,  while  it  served  the  pur 
pose  of  a  sign  in  regard  to  the  treachery  in  question,  served, 
at  the  same  time,  to  connect  the  act  of  Judas  with  the  delinea 
tions  of  prophecy,  (John  xiii.  18;  Ps.  xli.  9.)  Then,  turning 
to  Judas,  He  said  emphatically,  "  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly." 
This  brought  the  matter  to  an  issue.  Judas's  time  was  clearly 
up;  he  had  forfeited  his  place  among  the  disciples  of  Jesus; 
and  if  the  bargain  »with  his  new  masters  was  to  be  imple 
mented,  it  must  be  instantly  gone  about.  Hence,  without  a 
moment's  delay,  he  hurried  off  to  the  Jewish  rulers  to  get 
them  to  strike  at  once,  as  now  only  was  it  likely  he  could  do 
aught  in  their  behalf. 

5.  Now,  let  it  be  imagined,  in  what  mood  he  must  have 
found  his  accomplices  at  such  a  time,  and  what  was  likely  to 
have  been  the  effect  produced  on  them  by  his  appearance. 
His  purpose  had  been  precipitated  by  what  took  place  in  the 
Passover-room;  and  this  necessarily  led  them  to  precipitate 
theirs.  It  was  a  great  crisis  with  them — now  or  never.  Even 
scrupulous  men  could  not  be  expected  to  be  very  nice  in  such  a 
moment ;  and  since  they  now  had  what  they  could  never  look  for 
again,  the  opportune  help  of  one  of  the  companions  of  Jesus, 
they  must  venture  somewhat,  though  it  should  oblige  them  to 
depart  a  little  from  use  and  wont— the  rather  so,  as  it  was 
probable  that  the  matter  might  be  brought  to  quite  a  speedy 
termination.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  it  was  but  a  com 
paratively  limited  number  of  persons,  who  were  actively  en 
gaged  in  the  business — only  a  few  of  the  more  resolute  and 
daring  members  of  the  Sanhedrim.  When  Judas  presented 
himself  before  these,  it  was  in  all  probability  still  the  earlier 
part  of  the  evening,  considerably  before  persons  in  their  rank 
of  life  would  be  accustomed  to  sit  down  to  the  Passover-feast. 
And  as  there  was  no  time  to  lose,  as  every  thing,  in  a  manner, 
depended  upon  their  seizing  the  favourable  moment,  and  as 
they  could  eat  their  Passover  any  time  between  night  and 
morning,  what  was  more  likely  than  that  they  should  agree 
to  postpone  their  participation  of  the  feast  till  they  had  got 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.  375 

through  with  this  urgent  business?  It  was  possible  enough 
they  might  have  it  despatched  before  midnight,  when  still  it 
would  not  be  too  late  for  them  to  eat  the  Passover.  Such,  it 
might  seem,  would  be  the  natural,  and,  on  every  account,  the 
most  advisable  course,  for  them  to  pursue  in  the  circumstances. 
Judas  in  the  first  instance,  and  then  the  party  with  whom  he 
was  in  concert,  had  both,  sooner  than  they  anticipated,  been 
thrown  into  the  vortex  of  active  and  violent  operations,  through 
the  overruling  providence  of  Him,  who  bounds  and  restrains 
even  the  wrath  of  the  wicked,  so  as  to  render  it  subservient  to  His 
purposes.  And  as  they  could  postpone  their  paschal  solemnity 
for  a  certain  period,  but  could  not  postpone  concurrence  with  the 
proposal  of  Judas  to  proceed  immediately  against  Jesus,  they 
hastily  concerted  their  measures,  and  commenced  their  course 
of  action,  by  sending  along  with  Judas  an  armed  band  to  the 
garden  of  Gethsemane,  for  the  purpose  of  arresting  the  Son 
of  Man,  and  dragging  him  to  the  tribunal  of  judgment. 

6.  So  far  the  traitor  had  calculated  aright.  Jesus  was 
found  in  the  well-known  garden.  He  had  there  already  passed 
through  that  solemn  and  affecting  scene  of  agony,  in  which, 
with  thrice-repeated  and  ever-increasing  earnestness,  He  had 
prayed  to  the  Father  that  the  cup  might  be  removed  from 
Him.  The  season  of  watching  and  prayer  was  no  sooner 
ended  than  Judas  and  his  company  presented  themselves.  It 
could  not,  therefore,  be  late;  as  it  was  still  near  the  beginning 
of  April,  when  the  nights  are  too  cold  in  Palestine  to  admit 
of  persons  remaining  at  an  advanced  hour  in  the  open  air, 
without  harm;  and  hence,  when  it  did  become  late,  Peter  is 
spoken  of  as  shivering  with  cold,  and  going  near  to  warm  him 
self  at  the  fire  that  had  been  kindled  (John  xviii.  18.)  We 
cannot  reasonably  suppose  the  time  of  the  meeting  in  Geth- 
semane  to  have  been  beyond  eight,  or,  at  the  furthest,  nine 
in  the  evening,  according  to  our  mode  of  reckoning.  What 
ensued  upon  the  meeting  need  not  at  present  detain  us.  Jesus 
proved  Himself  to  be  fully  equal  to  the  occasion — with  mingled 
majesty  and  meekness  met  the  assault  of  His  adversaries, 
kept  them  for  a  time  awe-struck  and  powerless,  by  word  and 
deed  showed  how  easily,  had  He  willed,  He  could  have  smit- 


376  PARASKEUE  AND  PASCIIA 

ten  them  to  the  ground;  but,  that  the  Father's  counsel  might 
be  fulfilled,  freely  yielded  Himself  into  their  hands.  There 
after  Ife  was  conducted  by  them  to  the  house  of  the  high 
priest;  first,  indeed,  to  Annas,  the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas, 
then  to  Caiaphas  himself,  where  the  chief  priests  and  elders — 
such  of  them  as  could  be  got  together  on  such  hasty  notice — 
had  meanwhile  assembled  to  give  formal  judgment  against 
Him.  Here,  however,  they  met  with  an  unexpected  difficulty ; 
for,  while  Judas  had  put  them  in  possession  of  the  obnoxious 
party,  he  had  but  poorly  provided  them  with  grounds  of  guilt, 
or  evidence  to  establish  it.  "  They  sought  for  witness  against 
Jesus  to  put  Him  to  death — and  found  none"  (Mark  xiv.  55.) 
So  that,  after  fruitless  efforts  to  make  good  a  charge  of  felony, 
and  considerable  time  spent  in  the  endeavour,  they  were  obliged 
to  fall  back  on  the  claims  of  Jesus  regarding  His  person,  and 
extorted  from  Him  a  confession  of  His  assuming  to  be,  in  a 
sense  altogether  peculiar,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  This 
they  held  to  be  blasphemy,  and  thereby  obtained,  indeed,  the 
materials  of  a  capital  offence;  since,  by  the  law  of  Moses, 
blasphemy  was  punishable  with  death.  But  a  new  difficulty 
sprung  up  on  this  very  ground,  for,  as  it  was  necessary  to  ob 
tain  the  sanction  of  the  Roman  governor  to  the  doom  before 
it  could  be  put  in  execution — the  charge  being  a  strictly  re 
ligious,  not  a  civil  one — how  should  they  manage  to  get  Pilate 
to  accredit  it?  They  must,  however,  make  the  trial;  Pilate's 
consent  was  indispensable ;  and  they  must  present  themselves 
with  the  prisoner  at  the  judgment-hall,  in  order  to  press  the 
sentence  of  judicial  condemnation.  Thither,  accordingly,  they 
went. 

7.  By  this  time  it  was  past  midnight;  it  is  even  said  in 
John  xviii.  28,  that,  when  they  got  to  the  judgment-hall  or 
pnetorium  of  Pilate,  it  was  T:  ft  col',  not  merely  past  midnight, 
but  early  morn.  This  is  implied  also,  in  the  circumstance 
that,  before  leaving  the  palace  of  the  high  priest,  the  crowing 
of  the  cock,  indicating  the  approach  of  dawn,  had  been  heard, 
awakening  the  cry  of  guilt  in  Peter's  bosom.  It  might  still 
further  be  inferred,  from  the  accounts  given  by  the  several 
Evangelists  of  the  processes  of  trial  and  examination  gone 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.  377 

through,  followed  by  the  scenes  of  mockery  and  dishonour, 
during  which,  it  is  evident,  many  hours  must  have  been  con 
sumed.  And,  indeed,  the  very  purpose  for  which  they  went 
to  the  praetorium  is  a  proof  that  it  must  have  been  about  the 
break  of  day;  since  they  could  not  sooner  have  expected  an 
audience  of  the  governor  on  a  matter  of  judicial  administra 
tion.  Early  in  the  morning,  then — it  might  be  a  little  before, 
or  a  little  after  sunrise — they  led  Jesus  to  the  prsetorium ;  and 
when  there,  they  presented  Him  before  Pilate  for  summary 
condemnation,  as  a  person  whom  they  had  ascertained  to  be  a 
rebel  against  the  government  of  Caesar,  forbidding  men  to 
give  tribute,  and  perverting  the  nation  (Luke  xxiii.  1.)  This 
took  place,  apparently,  at  the  door  of  the  pnstorium,  and  they 
doubtless  hoped  that  Pilate  would  instantly  accede  to  their 
proposal,  and  allow  them  to  take  their  own  way  with  the  pri 
soner.  Such,  however,  was  not  the  result;  the  same  over 
ruling  Providence,  which  controlled  their  proceedings  before, 
controlled  them  again;  instead  of  summarily  pronouncing 
judgment,  Pilate  took  Jesus  into  the  hall  for  the  purpose  of 
examining  more  closely  into  the  matter.  But  thither,  it  is 
said,  (John  xviii.  28,)  His  accusers  refused  to  follow,  "they 
did  not  go  in  to  the  judgment-hall,  lest  they  should  be  defiled, 
but  that  they  might  eat  the  Passover." 

8.  Now,  it  is  here  that  the  first,  and  indeed  the  main  diffi 
culty  presents  itself,  in  reconciling  St.  John's  account  of  the 
transactions  with  the  accounts  of  the  other   Evangelists,  and 
with  what  may  seem  to  have  been  the  facts  of  the  case: — a 
difficulty  which  has  given  rise  to  a-  variety  of  conjectural  ex 
planations;  in  particular,  to  the  supposition,  on  the  part  of 
some,  that  Jesus  kept  the  Passover  with  His  disciples  a  day 
earlier  than  the  Jews  generally;  and,  on  the  part  of  others, 
to  the  supposition  that  the  eating  of  the  Passover  mentioned 
in  the  passage  just  quoted,  referred,  not  to  the  eating  of  the 
Paschal  lamb  itself,  but  to  the  subsequent  and  supplemental 
provisions  of  the  feast.     Both  views  carry  a  somewhat  unna 
tural  and  arbitrary  appearance;  and  can  neither  of  them  stand 
a  rigid  examination. 

9.  The  latter  view,  which  would  take  the  expression  "eating 

32* 


378  PARASKEUE  AND  PASCIIA 

the  Passover"  in  an  inferior  sense,  of  tlie  tilings  to  be  eaten 
only  on  the  second  and  other  days  of  the  feast,  has  the  usage 
of  the  Evangelists  wholly  against  it.  The  expression  occurs 
in  five  other  places — Matt.  xxvi.  17;  Mark  xiv.  12,  14;  Luke 
xxii.  11,  15 — and  always  in  the  sense  of  eating -the  Passover 
strictly  so  called.  It  is  true,  as  is  still  urged  hy  Luthardt, 
that  in  Deut.  xvi.  2,  offerings  of  the  herd  and  flock  to  be  pre 
sented  during  the  feast  are  called  the  paschal  sacrifices,  and 
that  the  word  Passover  itself  is  used  by  John  frequently  of 
the  feast  generally  (ii.  28,  xiii.  1,  xviii.  89.)  But  these  things 
will  never  prove,  or  even  render  probable  the  idea,  that  the 
phrase  of  "eating  the  Passover"  might  be  used  of  any  other 
part  of  the  feast,  exclusive  of  the  very  thing  from  which  all 
the  rest  took  its  character  and  name;  and  the  plain  meaning 
of  the  expression,  in  all  the  other  passages  where  it  occurs, 
must  be  held  conclusive  against  it.  Then,  as  regards  the  other 
opinion,  that  our  Lord  kept  the  Passover  on  a  day  earlier  than 
the  Jews  generally,  it  places  the  account  of  John  in  direct 
opposition  to  that  of  the  other  Evangelists.  They  clearly 
represent  the  day  observed  by  our  Lord  as  the  one  looked 
forward  to  with  common  expectation  for  the  keeping  of  the 
Passover.  In  Matt.  xxvi.  2,  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying 
at  the  close  of  His  discourses,  "  Ye  know  (as  if  there  could  be 
no  doubt  upon  the  matter)  that  after  two  days  is  the  Passover, 
and  the  Son  of  Man  is  betrayed  to  be  crucified;"  again  at 
ver.  17,  "And  on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  the  disci 
ples  came  to  Jesus,  saying  unto  him,  Where  wilt  Thou  that  we 
prepare  for  Thee  to  eat  the  Passover?"  So  also  in  Mark  xiv. 
1,  it  is  intimated,  as  a  matter  of  public  notoriety,  "After  two 
days  was  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  and  of  unleavened  bread;" 
and  still  again  in  Luke  xxii.  7,  "Then  came  the  day  of  un 
leavened  bread,  when  the  Passover  must  be  killed."  With 
such  clear  and  explicit  statements  on  the  subject,  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say  with  Lucke,  that  "it  is  impossible  to  extract 
from  the  text  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels  even  the  semblance 
of  an  anticipation  of  the  Passover."  And  if  we  hold  by  the 
historical  fidelity  of  their  accounts,  no  ingenious  theorizings 
as  to  the  probability,  or  moral  fitness  of  the  day  preceding 


AND  TIME  OF  TEE  LAST  PASSOVER.  379 

that  of  the  ordinary  Passover,  being  observed,  can  have  any 
effect  in  countervailing  the  force  of  the  testimony  delivered 
in  the  above  passages.  Of  such  theorizings  none  has  been 
pressed  with  more  frequency  or  confidence  than  the  require 
ments  of  type  and  antitype — not  merely  as  understood  by  the 
Jews,  and  urged  by  commentators  like  De  Wette,  Liicke, 
Meyer,  Ewald,  Bleek;  but  also  as  demanded  by  the  nature  of 
things.  So  Mr.  Gresswell,  for  example,  presses  the  considera 
tion:  circumstances  of  time  and  place  were  indispensable  to 
the  constitution  of  the  paschal  offering  as  a  type;  it  must  be 
slain  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  and  only  in  the  place  where  God 
had  put  His  name,  latterly  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem ;  other 
wise,  the  ordinance  was  not  kept  in  its  integrity.  And  "who 
then,"  asks  Mr.  Gresswell,  "  shall  say,  that  they  were  not 
equally  indispensable  to  the  antitype?  Had  Christ  suffered, 
though  He  had  suffered  as  a  victim,  on  any  day  but  the  14th 
of  Nisan  could  He  have  suffered  as  the  Jewish  Passover  ?  Had 
Jesus  suffered,  though  He  had  suffered  any  where  but  at  Je 
rusalem,  could  He  have  suffered  as  the  Jewish  Passover?"1 
But  why  stop  simply  there?  Why  not  insist  upon  other  cor 
respondences  of  a  like  kind?  The  Jewish  Passover  was  ex 
pressly  required  to  be  a  lamb  of  a  year  old;  and  could  Christ 
have  suffered  as  the  Jewish  Passover,  if  more  than  a  year  had 
elapsed  since  He  entered  on  His  high  vocation  ?  The  Jewish 
Passover,  wherever  and  however  killed,  must  have  its  blood 
poured  around  the  altar;  and  could  Christ  have  suffered  as  the 
Jewish  Passover,  if  a  like  service  was  not  performed  with  His 
life-blood?  If  such  merely  outward  correspondences  are 
pressed,  we  shall  not  find  the  reality,  after  all;  and  that  not 
here  alone,  but  in  the  ordinances  generally  which  had  their 
antitypical  fulfilment  in  the  history  and  work  of  Chris't.  The 
demand  for  these  proceeds  on  mistaken  views  of  the  relation 
between  type  and  antitype ,  as  if  the  one  stood  upon  the  same 
level  with  the  other,  and  were  equally  dependent  upon  con 
ditions  of  place  and  time.2  And,  besides,  what,  in  the  cir 
cumstances  supposed,  should  become  of  our  Lord's  own  Pass 
over?  The  precise  day  did  enter  as  an  important  element 
1  Harmony,  vol.  iii.,  p.  163.  2  See  Typology  of  Scripture,  vol.  i.,  p.  57. 


380  PARASKEUE  AND  PASCHA 

into  the  Old  Testament  ordinance ;  and  was  He,  who  came  to 
fulfil  the  law,  to  change  at  will  the  Divine  appointment?  Was 
it  by  infringing  upon  one  part  of  a  typical  institution,  that 
He  was  to  make  good  another?  To  say  with  some,  among 
others  Stier,  that  it  was  probably  the  right  day  for  the  Pass 
over  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  kept,  and  that  the  Jews  erred 
a  day  in  their  calculations,  is  a  mere  assertion,  and  against 
the  manifest  bearing  of  the  evangelical  statements  already 
adduced.  Such  lame  and  halting  respect  to  the  ordinances 
of  heaven,  could  neither  be  pleasing  to  God,  nor  satisfactory 
to  men;  and  Christ's  accomplishment  of  the  things  written 
beforehand  concerning  Him  in  type  and  prophecy,  must  be 
placed  on  another  footing,  if  it  is  to  approve  itself  to  our  re 
ligious  feelings  and  intelligent  convictions.  We  dismiss, 
therefore,  all  pleadings  of  the  kind  now  referred  to ;  and  hold 
to  the  plain  import  of  the  historical  statements  in  the  Evange 
lists,  that  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  knew  of  no  day  for 
observing  the  Passover,  but  the  one  which  the  law  required^ 
and  which  was  common  to  them  with  their  countrymen.1 

1  The  reasoning  in  the  text  is  directed  only  against  those  who  hold  the  idea 
of  an  anticipated  Passover  being  kept  by  our  Lord,  witho.ut  impugning  the 
historical  accuracy  of  the  Synoptical  Evangelists.  But  most  of  the  German 
•writers,  who  think  that  our  Lord  either  did  not  keep  the  Passover  at  all,  or, 
at  least,  that  He  did  not  keep  it  on  the  common  day,  give  up  the  historical 
accuracy  of  the  Synoptists.  So,  for  example,  Meyer  and  Ewald  (the  latter 
in  his  Gcschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  v.  p.  409,  s<?.,)  who  both,  though  Meyer 
most  sharply  and  offensively,  hold  John's  narrative  to  be  irreconcilable  with 
the  other  accounts;  that  he,  however,  gave  the  correct  one,  while  the  others 
erroneously  identify  the  feast  kept  by  our  Lord  with  the  proper  Jewish  Pass 
over.  They  followed  a  mere  tradition;  and  Meyer  supposes  the  tradition  to 
have  originated  in  the  Lord's  Supper  coming  to  be  identified  with  the  Paschal 
Feast;  whence  the  day  of  its  institution  was  first  viewed  as  an  ideal  14  Nisan, 
and  by-and-by  was  taken  for  a  real  14  Nisan.  Precious  writers  of  sacred 
history — to  say  nothing  of  their  inspiration — who  could  thus,  all  three,  con 
found  the  ideal  with  the  real,  which  is  here,  in  plain  terms,  the  false  with  the 
true!  Considering  the  importance  which  attached  to  the  last  festal  solem 
nity  of  Jesus,  we  ask,  with  Luthardt,  how  could  such  an  error  in  the  tradi 
tion  have  sprung  up,  especially  under  the  eyes  of  the  apostles,  and  gained  an 
established  footing?  Or,  if  such  a  thing  hud  been  possible,  what  must  one 
think  of  the  intelligence  and  the  memory  of  the  Synoptists?  The  very  pro 
posing  of  such  a  solution  seems  like  an  affront  to  one's  understanding,  as  well 
as  an  assault  on  one's  faith. 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.  381 

10.  In  truth,  the  supposition,  that  our  Lord  and  his  disci 
ples  anticipated  by  a  day  the  proper  time  for  observing  the 
Passover,  when  closely  examined,  fails  to  explain  the  state 
ment,  for  the  solution  of  "which  it  was  more  peculiarly  adopted: 
it  does  not,  if  it  were  true,  account  for  the  refusal  of  our  Lord's 
accusers  to  enter  the  prgetorium.     This  has  been  well  pointed 
out  by  Friedlieb,  in  a  passage  quoted  by  Alford,  "  The  Jews 
•would  not  enter  the  prcetorium,  that  they  might  not  be  defiled, 
but  that  they  might  eat  the  Passover.     For,  the  entrance  of 
a  Jew  into  the  house  of  a  Gentile  made  him  unclean  till  the 
evening.     It  is  surprising,  that,  according  to  this  declaration 
of  the  holy  Evangelist,  the  Jews  had  still  to  eat  the  Passover; 
whereas  Jesus  and  His  disciples  had  already  eaten  it  on  the 
previous  night.     And  it  is  no  less  surprising,  that  the  Jews 
in  the  early  morning  should  have  been  afraid  of  rendering 
themselves  unclean  for  the  Passover;  since  the  Passover  could 
not  be  kept  till  the  evening;  i.  e.9  till  the  next  day,  (for  the 
day  was  reckoned  from  evening  to  evening;)  and  the  unclean- 
ness  which  they  dreaded,  did  not,  by  the  law,  last  till  the  next 
day."     Had  these  Jews,  therefore,  been   simply  concerned 
about  fitness  for  eating  the  Passover  on  the  day  following 
that  observed  by  Christ  and  His  disciples,  they  did  not  need 
to  have  been  so  sticklish  about  entering  the  prsetorium;  the 
uncleanness  they  were  anxious  to  avoid  contracting  would  of 
itself  have  expired  by  the  time  they  behooved  to  be  free  from 
it ;  at  sunset  they  should  again  have  been  pure.     So  that  the 
supposition,  which  is  historically  groundless,  is  also  inadequate 
for  the  purpose  of  a  proper  explanation. 

11.  Friedlieb  himself,  along  with  not  a  few  critical  autho 
rities,  in  former  as  well  as  present  times,  is  disposed  to  fall 
in  with  the  other  supposition,  and  to  regard  the  eating  of  the 
Passover,  in  John  xviii.  28,  as  referring  to  subordinate  parts 
of  the  feast.     After  stating  that  the  passage  labours  under  no 
small  exegetical  difficulties,  which,  perhaps,  cannot  be  solved 
for  want  of  accurate  knowledge  of  the  customs  of  the  time, 
he  adds,  "  Possibly  the  law  concerning  Levitical  defilements 
and  purifications  had  in  that  age  been  made  more  stringent, 
or  otherwise  modified;  possibly  they  called  some  other  meal. 


382  PARASKEUE  AND  PASCHA 

beside  the  actual  Passover,  by  its  name.  This  last  we  cer 
tainly,  with  our  present  knowledge  of  Hebrew  antiquities,  must 
assume."  We  might,  indeed,  have  to  do  so,  and  take  what 
satisfaction  we  could  from  the  possible  solution  thereby  pre 
sented,  if  the  circumstances  of  the  case  absolutely  required  it. 
But  it  is  here  we  demur:  we  see  no  necessity  for  having  re 
course  to  the  merely  possible  and  conjectural,  when  the  actual 
(if  duly  considered)  may  suffice.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind, 
we  again  repeat — though  constantly  overlooked  by  the  authors 
of  those  hypothetical  explanations — that  the  persons  mentioned 
by  the  evangelist  as  afraid  to  contract  uncleanness  by  enter 
ing,  the  pragtoriura,  and  thereby  losing  their  right  to  eat  of 
the  Passover,  formed  no  fair  representation,  in  this  matter,  of 
the  Jews  at  large.  The  Evangelist,  in  the  whole  of  this  part 
of  his  narrative,  is  speaking  merely  of  the  faction  of  the  chief 
priest  and  elders,  the  comparative  handful  of  men  who  con 
ducted  the  business  of  our  Lord's  persecution,  and  never  once 
refers  to  the  general  population  of  the  Jews.  Once,  indeed, 
and  again,  he  calls  them  by  the  name  of  Jews  (ch.  xviii.  31, 
xix.  7,  etc.)  partly  to  distinguish  them  from  Pilate,  the  hea 
then,  and  partly  also  from  his  custom  of  using  the  general 
name  of  Jews,  where  the  other  Evangelists  employ  the  more 
specific  names  of  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  (v.  16,  18,  ch.  vi.  x., 
etc.)  He  still,  however,  leaves  us  in  no  doubt,  that  the  per 
sons  really  Concerned  were  the  mere  party  of  the  high  priest, 
the  accomplices  of  Judas.  This  base  faction  had,  as  already 
stated,  been  driven  by  circumstances,  over  which  they  had  no 
control,  to  a  course  of  proceeding  different  from  what  they 
had  contemplated.  When  preparing  to  partake  of  the  Pass 
over,  they  suddenly  found  themselves  in  a  position  which 
obliged  them  to  act  with  promptitude,  while  it  did  not  appear 
to  exclude  the  possibility  of  their  being  able,  at  a  more  ad 
vanced  period  of  the  night,  to  eat  the  Passover.  In  the  ur 
gency  of  the  moment  they  allowed  the  feast  to  stand  over  till 
the  business  in  hand  was  despatched.  But  unexpected  diffi 
culties  met  them  in  the  way;  in  the  midst  of  which  the  night 
wore  on,  and  at  last  the  morning  dawned,  without  the  desired 
result  being  reached.  They  did  not,  however,  on  that  ac- 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.  383 

count,  abandon  the  purpose  of  eating  the  Passover — no  doubt 
conceiving  that  the  greatness  of  the  emergency  justified  the 
slight  deviation  they  had  to  make  from  the  accustomed  order. 
Hypocrites  and  formalists,  in  all  ages,  when  bent  on  the  exe 
cution  of  some  cherished  project,  have  been  notorious  for  their 
readiness  in  accommodating  their  notions  of  duty  to  the  exi 
gencies  of  the  moment;  they  can  swallow  a  camel  when  it 
suits  their  purpose,  while  at  other  times  they  can  strain  at  a 
gnat.  Nor  were  the  chief  actors  on  the  occasion  before  us 
ordinary  hypocrites  and  formalists;  the  more  forward  of  them 
at  least  belonged  to  the  Sadducean  party,  the  members  of 
which,  it  is  well  known,  never  scrupled  to  make  religious  prac 
tice  bend  to  self-interest  or  political  expediency.  It  is  vain, 
therefore,  in  a  case  like  the  present,  to  summon  a  host  of  wit 
nesses  (as  Mr.  Gresswell  does,  Harmony,  iii.  p.  156)  to  the 
great  regard  which  the  Jews  as  a  people  paid  to  the  Sabbath, 
and  to  the  consequent  improbability  of  their  pressing  forward 
such  judicial  proceedings  against  Christ,  on  the  supposition 
of  the  time  being  the  first  day  of  the  Paschal  Feast,  which  by 
the  law  was  to  be  observed  as  a  Sabbath.  A  single  fact  or 
two,  coupled  with  the  known  characters  of  the  actors,  is  per 
fectly  sufficient  to  put  all  such  general  testimonies  to  flight. 
Looking  into  Jewish  history,  we  find  it  related  of  a  period 
very  shortly  after  that  now  under  consideration,  during  the 
commotions,  which  took  place  under  Cestius,  that  while  the 
Jews  were  celebrating  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  they  heard 
of  the  governor's  approach  with  an  army  towards  Jerusalem ; 
and  immediately,  (to  use  the  words  of  Josephus,  Wars,  ii.  19, 
2,)  "  they  left  the  feast,  and  betook  themselves  to  their  arms; 
and,  taking  courage  greatly  from  their  multitude,  they  went 
in  a  sudden  and  disorderly  manner  to  the  fight,  with  a  great 
noise,  and  without  any  consideration  had  of  the  rest  of  the 
seventh  day,  although  the  Sabbath  was  the  day  to  which  they 
had  the  greatest  regard;  but  that  rage,  which  made  them 
forget  the  religious  observance,  made  them  too  hard  for  their 
enemies  in  the  fight."  Here,  both  the  solemnities  of  the  feast 
and  the  hallowed  rest  of  the  Sabbath  were  unhesitatingly  sa 
crificed  to  the  demands  of  a  civil  emergency.  And  at  a  some- 


384  PARASKEUE  AND  PASCHA 

what  later  stage  of  affairs,  instances  are  recorded  by  Josephus, 
which  show,  that  the  men  who  then  chiefly  ruled  in  Jerusalem 
came  even  to  count  nothing  whatever  sacred,  in  comparison 
of  their  own  mad  policy;  that  the  most  hallowed  things  were 
turned,  without  scruple,  to  a  profane  use  whenever  the  interests 
of  the  moment  seemed  to  require  it ;  so  that,  from  what  passed 
under  his  observation,  the  historian  is  led  to  express  his  con 
viction  that,  if  the  Romans  had  not  come  and  put  an  end  to 
such  impieties,  some  earthquake,  or  supernatural  visitation 
from  heaven,  must  have  been  sent  to  revenge  the  enormities, 
(Wars,  v.  13,  6.) 

12.  Now,  it  is  only  ascribing  a  measure  of  the  same  spirit, 
and  in  a  far  inferior  degree,  to  the  few  leaders  of  this  conspi 
racy  against  Jesus,  when  we  suppose  them  to  have  been  hur 
ried  on  by  the  progress  of  events  beyond  the  proper  time  for 
eating  the  Passover;  yet,  without  abandoning  the  intention, 
and  the  hope  of  still  partaking  of  it,  after  the  business  in  hand 
was  brought  to  a  close.  They  were  consequently  anxious  to 
avoid  contracting  a  defilement,  which  would  have  prevented 
them  from  eating  the  Passover  during  the  currency  of  the  first 
day  of  the  feast.  Were  it  not  better  that  they  should  strive 
so  to  keep  the  feast,  than  omit  its  observance  altogether? 
Undoubtedly,  they  would  reckon  it  to  be  so.  For  the  delay 
that  had  occurred  beyond  the  appointed  time,  they  would 
plead  (as  with  their  views  there  was  a  fair  pretext  for  doing) 
the  constraint  of  circumstances ;  they  would  rest  in  the  con 
viction,  that  they  had  come  as  near  to  t4ie  legal  observance  of 
the  institution  as  it  was  practicable  for  them  to  do.  And  as 
to  the  special  objection  of  the  first  day  of  the  feast  being  a 
Sabbath,  and,  as  such,  unfit  for  the  prosecution  of  such  a  mat 
ter  as  now  engaged  their  attention,  the  same  considerations, 
which  could  reconcile  them  to  the  postponment  of  the  feast, 
would  also  appear  to  warrant  the  active  operations  they  pur 
sued.  It  was  not  as  if  matters  were  moving  in  a  regular  and 
even  current,  and  they  could  shape  their  proceedings  in  ac 
cordance  with  their  own  deliberate  judgments;  the  rush  of 
unexpected  circumstances  had  shut  them  up  to  a  particular 
course.  Nor  arc  there  wanting  instances  in  what  is  presently 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.  385 

after  recorded  of  them  in  Gospel  history,  in  perfect  keeping 
with  the  view  now  taken  of  their  procedure.  On  the  day  fol 
lowing  the  crucifixion,  which  by  the  testimony  of  all  the  Evan 
gelists,  was  not  only  a  Sabbath,  but  a  Sabbath  of  peculia'r  so 
lemnity,  they  waited  upon  Pilate,  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
him,  on  that  very  day,  to  set  a  watch  around  the  sepulchre 
of  Jesus,  lest  the  body  should  be  stolen  (Matt,  xxvii.  62,  63.) 
And  at  an  earlier  period,  we  learn  from  John  vii.  32,  37,  45, 
the  Pharisees  sent  out  officers  to  apprehend  Jesus  on  the  last 
day  of  the  Feast  .of  Tabernacles,  which  by  the  law  was  also  to 
be  observed  as  a  Sabbath.  So  that  either  they  did  not  look 
upon  such  judicial  proceedings  as  work  unsuited  to  a  Sabbath, 
or  they  thought  the  urgency  of  the  occasion  justified  its  being 
done.  How  much  more,  then,  in  the  matter  now  under  con 
sideration,  when  every  thing,  in  a  manner,  was  at  stake?  It 
is  proper  also  to  add,  that  while  the  first  day  of  the  Paschal 
Feast  was  appointed  to  be  kept  as  a  Sabbath,  it  was  not  pos 
sible,  from  the  amount  of  work  that  had  to  be  done  in  con 
nexion  with  the  feast,  that  it  could  have  so  much  the  charac 
ter  of  a  day  of  rest  as  an  ordinary  Sabbath.  And,  indeed, 
the  law  regarding  it  expressly  provides,  that  such  work  as 
was  necessary  to  the  preparation  of  victuals  and  travelling  to 
their  respective  abodes,  was  allowable  (Ex.  xii.  16;  Deut.  xvi. 
6,  7;)  ordinary  avocations  merely  were  prohibited,  in  order 
that  the  observances  proper  to  the  feast  might  proceed. 

The  conclusion,  therefore,  to  which  on  every  account  we  are 
led  is  precisely  that  which  the  Statement  in  John  xviii.  28  it 
self  requires  us  to  adopt.  The  expression  of  "  eating  the  Pass 
over"  there  employed,  by  invariable  usage  points  to  an  actual 
participation  on  that  very  day  of  the  proper  feast;  and  the 
more  closely  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  and  the  character 
of  the  actors  are  considered,  the  more  reason  do  we  find  for 
the  belief,  that  it  was  the  same  Passover  of  the  14th  of  Nisan 
which  our  Lord  had  kept,  and  which  they  were  still  intent  on 
celebrating,  though  from  urgent  circumstances,  it  had  to  be 
postponed  a  little  beyond  the  due  season.1 

1  It  is  not  necessary  to  do  more  than  refer  to  an  objection  that  might  be 
raised  against  this  conclusion,  drawn  from  the  procedure  of  our  Lord  Him- 

33 


386  PARASKEUE  AND  PASCHA 

13.  So  much  for  the  more  peculiar  passage  in  St.  John's 
Gospel  on  this  subject;  but  there  are  one  or  two  others  that 
also  require  explanation.  These  have  respect  to  the  Sabbath, 
and  in  particular  what  is  called  the  paraskeue.  Speaking  of 
the  time  when  Pilate  was  going  to  pronounce  judgment  against 
Jesus,  it  is  said  in  John  xix.  14,  ty  os  Trapaffxzoy  TOL>  rcdff%a9 
it  was  the  paraskeue  or  preparation  day  of  the  Passover.  This, 
it  has  been  alleged,  points  to  the  proper  passover-day  as  still 
to  come,  and  fixes  it  to  be  the  day  following  the  one  of  which 
the  transactions  are  recorded.  It  would  certainly  do  so,  if 
the  expression,  as  used  by  the  Evangelist,  meant  a  prepara 
tion-day  before  the  keeping  of  the  Passover.  But  this  does 
not  appear  to  be  the  case.  He  uses  the  word  paraskeue  twice 
again  in  the  same  chapter,  and  each  time  in  reference  to  the 
Sabbath:  ver.  81,  "The  Jews,  therefore,  because  it  was  the 
paraskeue,  that  the  bodies  should  not  remain  upon  the  cross 
on  the  Sabbath-day  (for  that  Sabbath  was  a  high  day)  be 
sought  Pilate  that  their  legs  might  be  broken,  and  that  they 
might  be  taken  away;"  and  ver.  42,  "There  laid  they  Jesus 
therefore  because  of  the  Jews'  paraskeue  ;  for  the  sepulchre 
was  nigh  at  hand."  Here,  plainly,  it  is  with  the  Sabbath, 
that  the  term  is  specially  connected;  and  the  natural  inference 
is,  that  in  the  earlier  passage,  although  it  is  called  the  para 
skeue  of  the  Passover,  yet  what  is  meant  is  not  a  paraskeue 
of  the  feast  itself,  but  a  Sabbath  paraskeue  during  the  feast. 
This  is  confirmed  by  what  is  written  in  the  other  gospels. 
Thus,  at  Matt,  xxvii.  62,  with  reference  to  the  application 
made  to  Pilate  for  a  guard  on  the  day  after  the  crucifixion  it 
is  said,  "Now,  on  the  following  day,  which  is  the  one  after 
the  paraskeue"  (jyivc  IGTW  /Jtsra  rr^  ^aoacrxzo^v  ;)  the  follow- 


self,  going  out  with  His  disciples  after  eating  the  Passover.  This  Mr.  Alford 
mentions  as  a  reason  for  thinking  of  another  than  the  exact  day  and  feast 
prescribed  by  the  law  being  kept;  since  in  Exod.  xii.  22,  it  was  ordered  that 
none  should  leave  his  house  till  the  morning.  But  it  was  equally  ordered, 
that  all  should  cat  the  Passover,  attired  as  travellers,  and  ready  for  a  journey, 
—  though  we  know,  the  prescription  was  not  kept  in  later  times,  and  was  un 
derstood  to  be  temporary.  So  and  much  more  must  the  other  have  been; 
for,  keeping  the  Passover,  as  multitudes  necessarily  did,  in  other  people's 
houses,  it  must  often,  have  happened  that  they  were  obliged  to  go  out  after 
wards. 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.  387 

ing  day,  beyond  doubt,  was  the  ordinary  Sabbath;  and  the 
name  paraskeue  had  become  so  common  as  a  designation  of 
the  preceding  day,  that  the  Sabbath  itself,  it  would  seem,  was 
sometimes  denominated  from  it.  Not  merely,  the  evening 
after  sunset  of  the  sixth  day,  as  Michselis,  Kuinoel,  Paulus,  and 
Alford  suppose  (though  even  so,  the  words  would  apply  to  what 
was  strictly  the  Jewish  Sabbath ;)  but  the  following  morn,  as 
the  T'7j  l~a'jf)tov  of  the  Evangelist  properly  means.  This  we 
may  the  rather  believe  to  be  the  meaning,  as  it  is  against  all 
probability  that  the  thought  of  placing  a  guard  around  the  se 
pulchre  during  the  night  between  the  second  and  the  third  day, 
should  have  occurred  so  early  as  the  very  night  of  the  cruci 
fixion  ;  it  has  all  the  appearance  of  an  after-thought,  spring 
ing  up  when  reflection  had  got  time  to  work.  In  Mark  xv. 
42,  we  have  not  only  the  same  word  applied  to  designate  the 
time  preceding  the  Sabbath,  but  an  explanation  added,  "And 
evening  having  now  come,  since  it  was  paraskeue,  which  is 
TrpocrdfifiaTou,  fore  Sabbath."  Luke  says,  ch.  xxiii.  54,  "and 
it  was  paraskeue  day"  (xal  fyuspa  fjy  xaoaff.)  The  day  which 
preceded  the  Sabbath,  was  called  by  way  of  emphasis,  the 
preparation,  on  account  of  the  arrangements  that  had  to  be 
made  on  it  in  anticipation  of  the  approaching  Sabbath,  with 
the  view  of  spending  this  in  perfect  freedom  from  all  ordinary 
labour.  So  much  account  was  made  of  such  preparatory  ar 
rangements,  in  the  later  periods  of  Jewish  history,  that  the 
name  paraskeue  came  to  be  a  familiar  designation  for  the  sixth 
day  of  the  week,  and  even  to  have  a  certain  degree  of  Sabbati 
cal  sacredness  attached  to  it.  Josephus  gives  a  decree  of  Au 
gustus  securing,  among  other  liberties  to  the  Jews,  exemption 
from  judicial  proceedings  on  the  Sabbath,  and  on  paraskeue, 
after  the  ninth  hour  (Ant.  xvi.  6,  2.)  Irenreus,  in  his  account 
of  the  Yalentinian  Sj^stem,  represents  them  as  connecting  the 
creation  of  man  with  the  sixth  day,  because  it  was  the  para 
skeue  (I.  14,  6.)  And  in  a  passage  quoted  by  Wetstein,  at 
Matt,  xxvii.  62,  from  a  Rabbinical  authority,  the  days  of  the 
week  are  given  thus:  the  first,  second,  third,  fourth,  fifth,  pa 
raskeue,  Sabbath.  Clearly  therefore  the  word  in  question 
had  come  to  be  familiarly  applied  to  denote  the  day  corre- 


888  PARASKEUE  AND  PASCHA 

spending  to  our  Friday,  to  denote  that  day  as  a  whole,  not 
merely  some  concluding  fragment  of  it;  but  we  have  no  evi 
dence  of  any  such  appellation  being  customary  in  regard  to 
the  Passover  Feast.  Nor,  indeed,  can  we  conceive  how  it 
should  have  been  thought  of.  For,  as  already  stated,  even  on 
the  first  day  itself  of  the  feast,  a  certain  freedom  was  allowed 
for  travelling  and  preparing  victuals ;  and  the  day  preceding 
it  must  usually  have  been  one  of  considerable  bustle  and  acti 
vity.  We  hold  it,  therefore,  as  established  beyond  all  reason 
able  doubt,  that  the  paraskeue  is  the  day  preceding  the  regu 
lar  Jewish  Sabbath;  and  that  when  the  Evangelist  John  speaks 
of  the  paschal  paraskeue,  he  is  to  be  understood  as  meaning 
simply  the  Jewish  Saturday,  the  fore-Sabbath  of  the  Passover- 
solemnity  ;  in  other  words,  not  an  ordinary  preparation-day, 
but  that  heightened  by  the  additional  solemnities  connected 
with  the  Passover — such  a  paraskeue  as  was  itself  a  sort  of 
Sabbath.  Hence  he  makes  the  further  explanatory  state 
ment,  that  the  Sabbath  following  was  a  high  day,  or,  lite 
rally,  "  Great  was  the  day  of  that  Sabbath."  Why  should  it 
have  been  called  great  ?  Not  surely — though  this  is  very  often 
alleged — because  the  first  day  of  the  Jewish  Passover  coin 
cided  with  the  ordinary  Sabbath;  for  a  great  deal  had  to  be 
done  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  which  tended  rather  to  dis 
turb  Jewish  notions  of  Sabbatical  repose: — the  killing  of  many 
thousand  victims  (Josephus  even  speaks  of  so  many  as  200,000,) 
the  pouring  of  the  blood  around  the  altar,  the  hurrying  to  and 
fro  of  persons  performing  these  services,  and  all  the  labour 
and  bustle  connected  with  the  cooking  of  so  many  suppers. 
A  day,  on  which  all  this  went  on,  could  scarcely  be  regarded 
among  the  Jews  as  emphatically  a  great  Sabbath.  They 
were  much  more  likely  to  apply  such  an  expression  to  the 
Sabbath  immediately  following  the  Paschal  Supper,  when,  the 
activities  of  the  feast  being  over,  the  assembled  people  were 
ready,  in  vast  numbers,  and  with  excited  feelings,  to  engage 
in  the  public  services  of  the  sanctuary. 

Thus,  every  expression  receives  its  most  natural  explana 
tion;  no  constraint  is  put  upon  any  of  the  words  employed 
either  by  St.  John  or  by  the  other  Evangelists ;  while,  by  giving 


AND  TIME  OF  THE  LAST  PASSOVER.  389 

full  play  to  the  historical  elements  mentioned  in  the  narra 
tive,  we  have  the  best  grounds  for  concluding,  both  that  our 
Lord  kept  the  Passover  with  His  disciples  on  the-  14th  of 
Nisan,  on  the  day  prescribed  by  the  law,  and  observed  by  the 
great  body  of  the  Jews,  and  that  a  faction,  but  in  point  of 
number,  only  a  small  faction  of  these,  lost  the  opportunity  of 
observing  it  till  a  later  period  of  the  same  day.  If  these  po 
sitions  have  been  successfully  made  out,  then,  in  this  case,  as 
in  so  many  others  connected  with  the  sacred  writings,  the  ap 
parent  discrepance  in  the  different  statements,  as  seen  from  a 
modern  point  of  view,  coupled  with  the  satisfactory  explana 
tion,  which  arises  from  a  careful  examination  of  the  circum 
stances,  affords  a  strong  confirmation  of  the  thorough  truth 
fulness  and  integrity  of  the  writers — greatly  more  than  if  their 
narratives  had  presented  a  superficial  and  obvious  agreement. 


33* 


390  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 


PART  THIRD. 

THE  USE  MADE  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  SCRIPTURE  IN  THE  WRITINGS 
OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

THE  use  here  referred  to  has  respect  simply  to  the  formal 
quotations  made  in  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old,  and 
the  purposes  to  which  they  are  applied.  There  is  a  more 
general  use  pervading  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  writings, 
and  appearing  in  the  constant  appropriation  of  the  truths  and 
principles  unfolded  in  Moses  and  the  prophets,  of  the  hopes 
and  expectations  that  had  been  thereby  awakened,  and  the 
very  forms  of  thought  and  expression  to  which,  as  subjects  of 
former  revelations,  the  minds  of  God's  people  had  become 
habituated.  In  all  these  respects  the  New  is  the  continuation 
and  the  proper  complement  of  the  Old.  But  beside  this 
general  use,  which  touches  more  or  less  on  every  department 
of  theological  inquiry,  there  is  the  more  formal  and  specific 
use,  which  consists  in  the  citations  made  by  our  Lord  and 
His  apostles  from  the  inspired  writings  of  the  Old  Covenant. 
These  are  of  great  number  and  variety;  and  are  marked  by 
such  peculiarities,  that  it  may  justly  be  regarded  as  one  of 
the  chief  problems,  which  modern  exegesis  has  to  solve,  to  give 
a  satisfactory  explanation  and  defence  of  the  mode  of  quoting 
and  applying  Old  Testament  Scripture  in  the  New.  If  this 
cannot  be  made  to  appear  consistent  with  the  correct  inter 
pretation  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  with  the  principles  of 
plenary  inspiration,  there  is  necessarily  a  most  important 
failure  in  the  great  end  and  object  of  exegetical  studies. 

It  is  proper,  however,  to  state  at  the  outset,  that  a  very  con 
siderable  number  of  the  passages,  which  may,  in  a  sense,  be 
reckoned  quotations  from  Old  Testament  Scripture,  are  better 
omitted  in  investigations  like  the  present.  They  consist  of 
silent,  unacknowledged  appropriations  of  Old  Testament  words 


OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW.  391 

or  sentences,  quite  natural  for  those,  who  from  their  childhood 
had  been  instructed  in  the  oracles  of  God,  but  so  employed  as 
to  involve  no  question  of  propriety,  or  difficulty  of  interpreta 
tion.  The  speakers  or  writers, -in  such  cases,  do  not  profess 
to  give  forth  the  precise  words  and  meaning  of  former  reve 
lations  ;  their  thoughts  and  language  merely  derived  from  these 
the  form  and  direction,  which  by  a  kind  of  sacred  instinct 
they  took;  and  it  does  not  matter  for  any  purpose,  for  which 
the  inspired  oracles  were  given,  whether  the  portions  thus  ap 
propriated  might  or  might  not  be  very  closely  followed,  and 
used  in  connexions  somewhat  different  from  those  in  which 
they  originally  stood.  For  example,  when  the  Virgin  Mary, 
in  her  song  of  praise,  says,  "He  hath  filled  the  hungry  with 
good  things,"  she  uses  words  exactly  agreeing  in  our  version 
with  those  in  Ps.  cvi.  9,  and  in  the  original  differing  only  in 
its  having  the  singular  for  hungry  and  good,  where  the  other 
has  the  plural:  but  nothing  scarcely  can  be  said  to  be  either 
gained  or  lost  by  bringing  the  two  passages  into  comparison, 
nor  can  we  even  be  certain,  that  the  later  passage  was  actu 
ally  derived  from  the  other.  Or,  when  the  Apostle  Peter,  in 
ch.  iii.  14,  15,  of  his  first  epistle,  gives  the  exhortation,  "Be 
not  afraid  of  their  terror,  neither  be  troubled,  but  sanctify  the 
Lord  God  in  your  hearts,"  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  he 
substantially  adopts  the  language  of  Isaiah,  in  ch.  viii.  12,  13  ; 
but  as  he  does  not  profess  to  quote  what  had  been  written  by 
the  prophet,  so  he  reproduces  the  passage  with  such  freedom, 
as  to  manifest,  that  it  was  the  substance  of  the  exhortation, 
rather  than  the  ipsissima  verba  containing  it,  which  he  meant 
to  appropriate.  There  are  multitudes  of  similar  examples, 
which  in  an  exegetical  respect  involve  no  difficulty,  and  call 
for  no  special  remark;  and  if  noticed  at  all,  it  should  only  be 
as  proofs  of  the  extent  to  which  the  ideas  and  language  of  the 
Old  Testament  have  given  their  impress  to  the  New.  Taking 
in  all  the  instances  in  which  the  expressions  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment  are  thus  used  by  the  authors  of  the  New,  as  well  as  the 
more  direct  and  formal  quotations,  a  number  exceeding  600 
has  been  made  out.1  No  proper  end,  however,  could  be  served 
1  See  the  volume  of  Mr.  Gough,  "The  New  Testament  Quotations  collated 


392  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

hereby  exhibiting  such  a  lengthened  array  as  this;  it  would 
tend  rather  to  embarrass  than  promote  the  object  we  have  in 
view.  Our  business  must  be  chiefly  with  citations  of  a  more 
formal  and  explicit  kind,  fitted,  from  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  employed,  to  raise  the  inquiry,  whether  they  are 
fairly  given  and  legitimately  applied. 

There  are  properly,  however,  two  points  of  inquiry — one 
bearing  respect  to  the  form  in  which  the  citations  appear;  the 
other,  to  the  application  made  of  them.  These  are  two  dis 
tinct  questions.  Are  the  passages  quoted  from  the  Old  Testa 
ment  in  the  New  fairly  dealt  with,  simply  as  quotations  ?  And 
are  the  purposes  for  which  they  are  adduced,  and  the  sense 
put  upon  them,  in  accordance  with  their  original  meaning  and 
design?  In  answer  to  the  first  question,  it  is  found,  that  the 
quotations  fall  into  four  different  classes;  the  first,  a  very 
large  one,  in  which  they  exactly  agree  with  the  Hebrew,  (of 
ten  also  with  the  Septuagint;)  the  second,  likewise  a  consi 
derable  one,  in  which  they  substantially  agree  with  the 
Hebrew,  the  differences  being  merely  formal  or  circumstan 
tial,  and  indicating  no  diversity  of  sense;  the  third,  those  in 
which  the  Septuagint  is  followed,  though  it  diverges  to  some 
extent  from  the  Hebrew;  and  the  fourth,  a  class  of  passages 
in  which  neither  the  Hebrew  nor  the  Septuagint  is  quite 
exactly  adhered  to.  The  whole  of  the  passages  might  be 
ranged  under  these  different  classes;  but  for  purposes  of 
reference  and  consultation  this  would  give  rise  to  inconve 
nience;  and  we  shall,  therefore,  follow  the  order  of  the  cita 
tions  themselves,  as  they  occur  in  the  New  Testament.  In 
adopting  this  course,  however,  we  shall  not  lose  sight  of  the 
several  classes,  which  shall  be  marked  respectively,  I.,  II., 
III.,  IV.,  and  one  or  other  of  them  appended  to  each  quota 
tion,  indicating  the  class  to  which  it  belongs,  with  a  figure 
besides,  denoting  its  number  in  that  class.  A  summation  will 
be  given,  at  the  close,  of  the  results  obtained,  and  such  ex 
planatory  remarks  added  as  may  seem  to  be  called  for.  This 
will  occupy  the  first  section. 

•with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,"  Walton  nnd  Maberly,  1855;  a 
volume  •which  shows  pnins  find  industry,  but  is  not  distinguished  for  critical 
ability;  and  is,  besides,  too  cumbrous  and  expensive  to  be  cf  general  use. 


ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.  393 

Another  section  will  be  devoted  to  the  second  point  no 
ticed — the  sense  put  upon  the  passages  quoted,  and  the  pur 
poses  to  which  they  are  applied ;  in  other  words,  the  principles 
involved  in  the  application  made  of  them.  In  the  great 
majority  of  cases,  however,  the  application  is  so  manifestly 
in  accordance  with  their  original  meaning  and  design,  that  it 
requires  no  vindication.  All  of  this  description,  therefore, 
will  be  passed  over,  and  attention  directed  only  to  such  as 
involve  some  apparent  license  in  interpretation. 


SECTION  FIRST. 

QUOTATIONS    FROM    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT   IN    THE    NEW,  CON 
SIDERED   IN    RESPECT    TO    THE    MANNER   OF    CITATION. 

THE  capital  figures  employed  after  each  quotation,  it  will 
be  borne  in  mind,  refer  to  the  several  classes  indicated  above. 
I.  Those  in  which  the  Greek  exactly  corresponds  with  the 
Hebrew.  II.  Those  in  which  it  substantially  agrees  with  the 
Hebrew,  the  differences  being  merely  circumstantial,  and  in 
dicating  no  diversity  of  sense.  III.  Those  in  which  the 
Septuagint  is  followed,  though  it  diverges  to  some  extent 
from  the  Hebrew.  IV.  Those  in  which  neither  the  Hebrew 
nor  the  Septuagint  is  exactly  adhered  to.  The  numerals 
subjoined  to  these  figures  give  the  number  of  that  class, 
reckoning  from  the  commencement  of  the  Gospels.  In  all 
cases  the  exact  translation  will  be  given,  whether  precisely 
agreeing  with  the  authorized  version  or  not. 

ST.  MATTHEW'S   GOSPEL. 

Ch.  i.  22,  23.  In  order  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,  which 
was  spoken  by  the  prophet,  saying,  Vooi>  57  xapOsvos  li> 
faarpl  ezet  xac  re^srae  ulbv,  zal  xaX£ffOuatv  TO  ovofia 
WJTO~J  'E/ifjiavo'jft:  Isa.  vii.  14.  Behold  the  virgin 
shall  be  with  child  and  shall  bring  forth  a  Son,  and 
they  shall  call  His  name  Emmanuel.  II.  1. 


394  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

The  deviation  here  from  the  exact  rendering  of  the  original 
is  very  slight  and  unimportant;  it  relates  only  to  two  expres 
sions,  putting  "shall  be  with  child"  for  "shall  conceive,"  n??, 
and  "they  shall  call"  for  "thou  shalt  call,"  ^-JD.  Jn  both 
cases  the  Septuagint  is  closer  to  the  original;  it  has  lv  yaarpl 

and  xaleffsez. 
Ch.  ii.  5,  6.  For  thus  it  is  written  by  the  prophet,  Kal  0b 

.  /'^  ' louda,  ouda/juo:; 
.'  Ix  croi)  yap  Isste'jffST 
TOV  Xaov  fio'j  TOV  ' lapoyX:  Micah  v.  2.  And  thou  Beth 
lehem,  Judah-land,  art  by  no  means  least  among  the 
rulers  of  Judah;  for  out  of  thee  shall  come  forth  a 
Governor,  who  shall  rule  My  people  Israel.  IV.  1. 
Here  the  differences  are  very  considerable,  both  from  the 
Hebrew  and  from  the  Septuagint.  (1.)  Instead  of  Ephratah, 
after  Bethlehem,  the  Evangelist  puts  pj  'loitda — an  elliptical 
expression  for  situated  in  the  land  of  Judah,  and,  coupled 
with  Bethlehem,  making  substantially  the  same  meaning  as  is 
sometimes  expressed  in  the  Old  Testament  by  the  compound 
term,  Bethlehem-Judah,  (Judg.  xvii.  7;  Ruth  i.  1.)  It  merely 
distinguishes  that  Bethlehem  from  another  in  a  different  loca 
lity.  So  far,  the  addition  of  the  Evangelist  serves  much  the 
same  purpose  as  the  Ephratah  of  the  prophet,  which  defined 
Bethlehem  as  the  place  that  originally  bore  the  name  of 
Ephratah,  (Gen.  xxxv.  19.)  The  Septuagint  has  oTxov  'EypaOd, 
which  gives  no  proper  sense.  (2.)  Instead  of  "thou  art  by 
no  means  least  among  the  rulers  of  Judah,"  the  Hebrew  has 
"thou  art  little  to  be  (too  small  to  be  reckoned)  among  the 
thousands  of  Judah,"—  nn-irr  ^Sxa  nrnS  Y;*.  The  Septua 
gint  gives  this  part  of  the  passage  with  substantial  correct 
ness,  dkyoffTOZ  EC  roi)  ewat  Iv  %tkdaiv  '/o'joa.  The  words  of 
the  Evangelist  express  a  meaning  formally  different,  yet 
materially  the  same.  Looking  at  the  substance  of  the  origi 
nal,  it  intimates,  that  Bethlehem,  little  in  one  respect,  scarcely 
or  not  at  all  able  to  take  its  place  among  the  ruling  divisions 
of  the  land,  was  yet  destined  to  be  great  in  another — as  the 
appointed  birth-place  of  the  future  Governor  of  Israel.  This 
two-fold  idea  is  precisely  that  also  which  the  words  of  the 


ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.  895 

Evangelist  convey — only  they  contemplate  the  preceding  lit 
tleness  as  in  a  manner  gone,  on  account  of  the  now  realized 
ultimate  greatness:  q.  d.  Thou  wast,  indeed,  among  the  least, 
but  thou  art  no  longer  so,  for  thou  hast  already  attained  to 
what  in  the  Divine  purpose  was  to  make  thee  great.  So  that 
this  change,  as  well  as  the  preceding  one,  proceeds  on  the 
principle  of  explaining  while  it  quotes — modifying  the  lan 
guage,  so  as,  without  changing  the  import,  to  adapt  it  to  the 
Evangelist's  times.  (3.)  The  remaining  clause  is  a  quite  cor 
rect,  though  somewhat  free,  translation  of  the  original,  which 
hardly  admits  of  a  very  close  rendering — lit.  "Out  of  thee 
there  shall  come  forth  for  Me  to  be  Governor  in  Israel," 
V}?;:p  Stfia  nrn1?  *v:.  ^  *\m9  that  is,  One  shall  be  raised  up 
there  by  My  special  providence,  who  shall  possess  the  govern 
ment  in  Israel;  all  one  in  substance  with  the  Evangelist's 
"  out  of  thee  shall  come  forth  a  <jovernor,  who  shall  rule  My 
people  Israel."  1 

Ch.  ii.  15.  In  order  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  Was 
spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying,  '.££  Alfu-n:- 
TO'J  IxdXsffa  rov  uiov  /JLO>J:  Hos.  xi.  1.  Out  of  Egypt 
have  I  called  My  Son.  I.  1. 

The  passage  of  Hosea  is  here  given  with  the  greatest  exact 
ness.  The  Septuagint  is  more  loose,  '//'?  Ar(.  {jtsrexdAsaa  ra 
rsxva  «:)roD,  apparently  taking  the  word  for  My  Son,  '^9  as 
a  plural,  sons,  or  children. 

Ch.  ii.  18.  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  through, 
Jeremiah  the  prophet,  saying,  0co^  lu  ^Papa.  tyobada, 
*xAaudfJibc  xal  doopfib^  xoAvz,  "Payj^  xAaiooaa  ra  rexi/a 
auTYfi,  xal  oux  ijd&tymv  Trapaxtyflrjvat,  o~c  OL>X  eiaivi  Jer. 
xxxi.  15.  In  Kama  was  there  heard  a  voice,  lamenta 
tion  and  great  mourning,  Kachel  bewailing  her  child 
ren,  and  refused  to  be  comforted,  because  they  are  not. 
II.  2. 
The  departures  from  the  Hebrew  original  are  here  quite 

1  For  some  explanation  of  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  fulfilment 
of  tha  prophecy,  and  especially  its  relation  to  the  governorship  of  Syria  by 
Cyrenius,  as  stated  in  Luke  ii.  2,  see  Appendix. 

a  The  received  text  has  0p?Jvo$  before  xTwwfyws,  but  it  wants  authority. 


396  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

trifling ;  they"  consist  merely  in  substituting  "  great  mourning' ' 
for  "bitter  weeping,"  or  weeping  of  bitternesses,  nnnion  O3? 
a  correct,  though  not  the  most  literal  translation ;  and  omit 
ting  the  second  mention  of  her  children^  which  is  found  in  the 
prophet — "refused  to  be  comforted  for  her  children,"  while 
the  Evangelist  simply  has,  "  refused  to  be  comforted,"  namely, 
for  the  loss  of  her  children.  What  is  not  expressed  is  clearly 
implied. 

Ch.  ii.  23.  And  he  came  and  dwelt  in  a  city  called  Naza 
reth,  so  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
through  the  prophets,  ore  Na^wpaco^  xtydfaerae,  He 
shall  be  called  a  Nazarene.  IV.  2. 

The  words  here  given  as  a  quotation  from  the  prophets  are 
not  found  in  express  terms  in  any  one  of  them;  and  the  mode 
of  quotation,  as  from  the  prophets  generally,  seems  to  import, 
that  the  Evangelist  had  in  view,  not  a  single  prediction,  but 
a  series  of  predictions,  respecting  Messiah,  the  substance  of 
which  might  be  compressed  into  the  sentence,  He  shall  be 
called  a  Nazarene;  that  is,  He  shall  be  a  person  of  low  and 
contemptible  appearance,  as  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth  were 
in  a  somewhat  peculiar  sense  esteemed  (John  i.  46.)  The  re 
ference  appears  to  be  to  such  passages  as  Isa.  iv.  2,  xi.  1; 
Jer.  xxiii.  1;  Zech.  iii.  8,  vi.  12,  in  which  the  Messiah  was 
spoken  of  as  the  offspring  of  David,  that  was  to  grow  up  as  a 
nezer,  or  tender  shoot;  in  plain  terms,  rise  from  a  low  condi 
tion,  encompassed  for  a  time  with  the  emblems  of  poverty  and 
meanness.  Nazareth  itself  was  probably  derived  from  nczer; 
so  that  sound  and  sense  here  coincided. 

Ch.  iii.  3.  This  is  he  that  was  spoken  of  by  Isaiah  the  pro 
phet,  saying,  (Pajvi/j  floa>vro{  zv  T~/J  Ipy/iyj, c  A'ro^atfarc 
TYjV  bduv  Kufjlo'j,  sutlzlaz  ~ots't~£  r«c  roiftoo^  oJjTul) ;  Isa. 
xl.  3.  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Pre 
pare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  His  paths  straight. 
II.  3. 

The  same  passage  is  also  quoted  in  Mark  i.  3 ;  Luke  iii.  4, 
and  in  precisely  the  same  words.  They  are  directly  taken 
from  the  Septuagint,  except  the  last  expression,  rpifiouz  aitTou, 
for  which  the  Septuagint  has  r/iifio'jz  roD  6eorj  fyww.  Both 


ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.  397 

renderings,  however,  differ  slightly  from  the  expression  of  the 
prophet,  which  is  "  highway  for  our  God,"  -'rrjbNS  nbqa.  The 
sense  is  entirely  the  same,  only  less  fully  and  boldly  exhibited 
by  the  Evangelists. 

Ch.  iv.  4.  It  is  written,  O'jx  ITT'  dorat  ILOVIO  ^azrai  6  dv- 
#/>o>7roc,  cU/'  £v  Havre  py/jari  £x7rop£tjo/jtsi>a>  did  0roymroc 
6soi>:  Deut.  viii.  3.  Not  on  bread  alone  shall  man 
live,  but  by  every  word  that  cometh  forth  through 
God's  mouth.  I.  2. 

The  passage  is  most  fitly  assigned  to  the  first  class  of  quo 
tations;  for  it  is  a  close  translation  of  the  original,  down  to 
the  last  word,  the  name  of  God.     This  is  Jehovah  in  the  ori 
ginal,  which  is  usually  given  in   the   Greek  by  A^/?;oc;  but 
here  the  Septuagint  has  OSGIJ,  and  it  is  followed  by  the  Evan 
gelist,  as  it  is  also  throughout,  except  in  the  substitution  of 
iv  xavri  instead  of  e~i  xavrt.    The  insertion  of  p'/j/j.a~t  in  the 
Septuagint  and  the  Evangelist,  without  any  thing  correspond 
ing  in  the  original,  is  only  done  to  render  the  sense  plain,  and 
cannot  justly  be  regarded  as  a  deviation  from  the  original. 
Ch.  iv.  6.  For  it  is  written,  *  On  ro?c  dyfeAott;  o.i>rorj  IUTS- 
nepe  <roD,  xal  ixt  %ecp&v  dpouacv  <TS,  p.rj  TTOTS  Ttpo- 
tpoz  tiOou  TOV  Koda  voi):  Ps.  xci.  11,  12.     He 
shall  give  His  angels  charge  concerning  thee,  and  upon 
their  hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up,  lest  thou  dash  thy 
foot  against  a  stone.     I.  3. 

The  meaning  of  the  original  is  quite  exactly  given,  and 
given  in  the  words  of  the. Septuagint— only  a  clause  is  omitted 
in  ver.  11  of  the  Psalm,  "to  keep  thee  in  all  thy  ways."     No 
change  is  thereby  introduced  into  the  passage,  which,  as  far 
as  it  goes,  is  a  faithful  reproduction  of  that  in  the  Psalm. 
Ch.  iv.  7.  It  is  again  written,  O'jx  Iz-eipdffstz  Kupcov  rbv 
6zbv  GOL>:  Deut.  vi.  16.      Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the 
Lord  thy  God.     I.  4. 

This  must  also  be  regarded  as  an  exact  translation ;  for  it 

merely  adopts  the  singular  for  the  plural — thou  for  ye;  an 

interchange  that  is  constantly  made  in  the  Pentateuch  itself, 

according  as  Israel  was  contemplated  as  a  plurality  or  a  unity. 

34 


398  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

The  Septuagint  here  adopts  the  singular;  so  the  words  of  the 
Evangelist  exactly  correspond  with  it. 

Ch.  iv.  10.  For  it  is  written,  Kb  p  toy  rby  Ozbv  oorj  xpoaxu- 
vrjaziz,,  %ai  abrw  /JLOUOJ  Xarp^bas.^'.  Deut.  vi.  13.  Thou 
shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  only  shult 
thou  serve.  III.  1. 

The  same  words  are  given  in  Luke  iv.  8 ;  they  are  those  of 
the  Septuagint;  but  they  differ  so  slightly  from  the  Hebrew, 
that  th'e  passage  might  almost  with  equal  propriety  be  ranked 
under  class  I.  The  only  divergence  is  in  putting  "thou  shalt 
worship,"  for  "thou  shalt  fear,"  NVJ>  The  fear  undoubtedly 
includes  worship,  as  its  chief  outward  expression. 

Ch.  iv.  14 — 16.  In  order  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,  which  was 
spoken  by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  /^  Zapo'Mv 
7.o.\  -fii  Netpdakslfr  bow  Qa/Aaar^  Tzipav  rorj  '  lopddvoo, 
FaAiAala  TCOV  lOvtov,  b  tabs  b  xaOij/Jt£voz  Iv  axoria  yco^ 
eJosv  pi-fa,  xae  rol^  xady/jievoiz  iy  y^opa  xal  ffxif  Oayd- 
TOU,  <pto~  dy£TEtA£y  cwro't^:  Isa.  ix.  1,  2.     Land  of  Zabu- 
lor.,  and  land  of  Nephthalim,  way  of  the  sea  beyond 
the  Jordan,  the  people  that  sat  in  darkness  saw  a  great 
light,  and  for  them  that  sat  in  the  region  and  shadow 
of  death,  light  sprung  up  to  them.     IV.  3. 
It  is  but  a  part  of  Isaiah's  prophecy  that  is  here  cited ;  the 
Evangelist  begins  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence,  and  does  not 
give  even  the  whole  of   what  follows.     The  entire  passage 
may  be  thus  literally  rendered:  "As  the  former  time  degraded 
the  land  of  Zabulon  and  the  land  of  Nephthalim,  so  the  latter 
makes  glorious  the  way  of  the  sea,  the  farther  side  ("O#)  of 
Jordan,   Galilee  of   the  Gentiles.      The  people  (viz.  of   this 
Galilee,)  those  walking  in  the  dark,  see  a  great  light,  the 
dwellers  in  the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death,  light  rises  upon 
them."     It  thus  appears,  that  there  are  considerable  differ 
ences  between  the  Evangelist  and  the  prophet,  but  chiefly  in 
the  way  of  abridgment,       His  purpose  did  not  require  him 
to  produce  the  whole,  and  he  gives  only  a  part — very  naturally, 
on  this  account,  beginning  with  a  nominative,  rf  Zap.,  while 
a  fuller  quotation  would  have  required  the  accusative.     For 
the  boby  in  the  next  clause,  see  at  p.  42.     It  has  very  much 


ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.  399 

the  force  of  a  preposition,  and  means  alongside,  or  by  the 
tract  of,  viz.  the  sea;  the  sea-board  portions  of  the  tribes  of 
Zabulon  and  Naphthali.  The  only  deviation  worth  naming, 
in  the  portion  that  is  fully  quoted,  from  the  precise  meaning 
of  the  original,  is  in  substituting  "the  people  that  sat,"  for 
"the  people,  those  walking" — D\?Vnn  o;;n;  and  "in  the  land 
and  shadow  of  death,"  for  "in  the  land  of  the  shadow  of 
death" — ™.?^  H^f  The  difference  in  both  respects  is  quite 
immaterial,  and  seems  to  have  been  adopted  for  the  sake  of 
greater  distinctness.  The  Septuagint  differs  so  much,  both 
from  the  original  and  from  the  Evangelist,  that  it  has  mani 
festly  exercised  no  influence  here. 

Ch.  viii.  17.  So  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  AUTO-  ra-  aadzvdaz 
fyjiujv  i)Afov  xal  rd^  vbcrooz  IfldffTCurevi  Isa.  liii.  4. 
Himself  took  our  sicknesses  and  bore  our  pains.  I.  5. 

The  Septuagint  has  here  oDroc  TO.-  d/MUprla^  ^IJLOJV  <pep*i, 
xal  xstoi  f/fjLwv  douudra'^  This  one  bears  our  sins,  and  on  our 
account  is  put  to  grief.  So  that  the  rendering  of  the  Evange 
list  strikingly  departs  from  it,  and  does  so  by  adhering  more 
closely  to  the  original.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is 
the  case  respecting  the  first  clause,  "Himself  took  (i.  e.,  took 
upon  Him  x;^)  our  sicknesses,"  or  diseases.  But  it  holds  equally 
of  the  second  clause,  which  is  D^ag  -irDto^  "and  our  pains 
He  bore  them."  The  only  peculiarity  in  the  Evangelist  is, 
that  he  employs  vbao'j^  in  the  sense  of  pains ;  which,  however, 
is  a  very  common  meaning  of  the  word,  though  not  elsewhere 
found  in  the  New  Testament. 

Ch.  ix.  13  (xii.  7.)  But  go  and  learn  what  is  yJ£Aeoc  Oeho 
y.al  o'j  O'joiav :  IIos.  vi.  6.  I  desire  mercy  and  not  sa 
crifice.  I.  6. 

The  passage  is  again  quoted  on  another  occasion  by  our 
Lord,  at  ch.  xii.  7,  and  in  precisely  the  same  words.  They 
give  the  literal  meaning  of  the  original,  and  adhere  more 
strictly  to  the  form  than  the  Septuagint,  which  has  v Ehoz 
Oiho  yj  Oufflau.  This  gives  undoubtedly  the  substantial  mean 
ing — I  desire,  or  delight,  in  mercy  rather  than  sacrifice — but 
it  is  obtained  by  a  sort  of  paraphrase. 


400  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

Ch.  xi.  10.     For  this  is  he  of  whom  it  is  written,  'Jdol>  If  a) 

dTTOffTsMco  TOV    «^£/OV    [JLOU  TTOO  TZOOffCOTTO'J  ffO'J,  Xdl  Xd- 

TaaxsudffZ!  rr^  bow  oou  s/ji7if)0(76sv  aoo\   Mai.  iii.  1. 

Behold  I  send  My  messenger  before  Thy  face,  and  he 

shall  prepare  Thy  way  before  Thee.  II.  4. 
In  the  original  it  is  simply,  "Behold  I  send  My  messenger 
(or  angel,)  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  Me."  As 
given  by  our  Lord,  there  is  a  change  of  person  not  found  in 
the  Hebrew — /  send  .  .  .  before  Thy  face,  prepare  the  way 
before  Thee;  and  it  is  also  a  little  more  explicit — not  simply 
send,  but  send  before  Thy  face,  and  prepare,  not  the  way 
merely,  but  expressly  Thy  way.  The  alterations  are,  like 
others  of  a  like  kind  already  noticed,  plainly  for  the  sake  of 
explanation.  It  was  in  reality  the  same  Divine  Being  who 
sent  the  messenger,  and  before  whom  the  messenger  was  to  go, 
preparing  the  way.  But  when  that  Divine  Being  had  become 
man,  and  was  Himself  in  the  condition  of  one  sent,  it  was  fit 
that  He  should  somehow  indicate  the  diversity  that  thus  ap 
peared  in  connexion  with  the  unity.  And  it  was  quite  natu 
rally  done  by  the  change  of  person  introduced,  by  which  the 
sender  appeared  in  some  sense-different  from  the  person  before 
whom  the  messenger  went;  yet,  as  the  messenger  had  just 
been  declared  to  be  greater  than  all  the  prophets  (ver.  9,)  who 
could  He  be,  whose  way  the  messenger  went  before  to  prepare, 
but  the  Lord  Himself,  that  sent  him?  This  was  evident  to 
any  thoughtful  mind;  and  to  show  it  was  the  same,  and  yet 
in  one  sense  another,  of  whom  in  both  parts  the  prophet  spake, 
was  our  Lord's  object  in  slightly  altering  the  original  words. 
The  real  meaning  was  not  thereby  altered;  it  was  only  adapt 
ed  to  existing  circumstances*  and  to  a  certain  extent  expli 
cated.  The  Septuagint  mistook  the  meaning  of  the  second 
clause  of  the  verse,  apparently  from  not  knowing  that  the  verb 
™p  in  the  Piel  signifies  to  clear  or  prepare;  so,  they  rendered 
ijyi  H23  by  IxtplefieTac  bdbv,  he  shall  survey  the  way. 

Ch.  xii.  17 — 21.     In  order  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which 

was  spoken  through  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  '/ooy, 

6  7TCUC  [J.OO,   OV  7jf)£Tt0a,  6  dfO.TlTjTO^  ftOU,   OV  SyoOX^tfSV  jj 

TO  xvev/Jid  /JLOU  ITT  cwrov,  me  xpiatv  roTc 


ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.  401 

v  dxajfelet.  oux  lolcrsc  ouos  xf)a>jfd(j*c,  ouos  dxou- 
ev  rat^  irfareiaiC   try  (pwvYjV  a>jToi>-  xd.Aafj.ov 
pifJLfjLsvoy   ou  xarsdzzc,   xal   Mvov    T>J<p6fj.£yov   ou 
ff^lffet,  ewz  dv  IxfidJUQ  e/c  vTxoc  ^v  xpiaw.  xal  ~w  ovo- 
/mrr  a'j^o7}  I0y^  ihtiouffw.  Isa.  xlii.  1 — 4.     Behold  my 
servant,  whom  I  have  chosen,  My  beloved,  in  whom 
My  soul  is  well-pleased ;  I  will  put  My  Spirit  upon 
Him,  and  He  shall  announce  judgment  to  the  Gen 
tiles.     He  shall  not  strive,  nor  cry,  nor  shall  any  one 
hear  His  voice  in  the  streets.     A  bruised  reed  shall 
lie  not  break,  and  smoking  flax  shall  He  not  quench, 
till   He   have   brought   forth  judgment    into   victory. 
And  in  His  name  shall  the  Gentiles  trust.     IV.  4. 
By  much  the  greater  part  of  this  passage  might  be  assigned 
to  the  first  class ;  for  it  gives  a  faithful  representation  of  the 
original — in  this  differing  favourably  from  the   Scptuagint, 
which  presents   a  very  loose  and  incorrect  translation.     It 
merely  has,  "whom  I  have  chosen,"  instead  of  "whom  I  up 
hold"  1-~'=I??^;  also,  "He  shall  not  strive,  nor  cry,"  instead 
of  "He  shall  not  cry  nor  lift  up,"  *&:  N*7]  p£*!  K1?;  the  former 
being  only  "more  explicit,  and  affixing  to  the  lifting  up  of  the 
prophet  the  more  definite  sense  of  boisterous  and  wrangling 
procedure.     But  at  the  close  of  ver.  20,  we  have  "till  He 
have  brought  forth  judgment  into  victory,"  while  in  the  ori 
ginal  it  is,   "He  shall  bring  forth  judgment  into  truth" — 
£33^?  N-sv  raxS — or  rather,  "for  truth  (in  the  interest  of  truth) 
He  shall  bring  forth  judgment;"  that  is  to  say,  His  administra 
tion  shall  be  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  truth ;  and 
that  is  not  materially  different  from  the  sense  of  the  Evange 
list,  who  represents  the  Lord's  servant  going  on  in  His  quiet, 
peaceful  exercise  of  goodness,  shunning  everything  that  might 
lead  to  violent  measures,  or  insurrectionary  movements,  till 
judgment — i.  e.,  righteousness  in  act  and  power — shall  have 
been  rendered  triumphant  over  all  that  was  opposed  to  it.     It 
is  a  free  rendering  of  the  words  of  the  original,  but  one  that 
gives  with  perfect  fidelity  their  scope  and  import.     And  the 
same  also  may  be  said  of  the  last  clause,  "in  His  name  shall 
the  Gentiles  trust,"  which  is  the  Septuagint  rendering  for 

34* 


402  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

what  is  literally,  "the  isles  shall  wait  for  His  law."  In  pro 
phecy  "the  isles"  is  often  put  for  the  Gentiles;  and  these 
being  said  to  wait  for  His  law,  is  as  much  as,  they  look  to 
Him  as  their  Lord,  they  trust  in  His  name. 

Ch.  xiii.  14,  15.  And  in  them  is  fulfilled  the  prophecy  of 
Esaias,  which  saith,  'y-Jxojy  axouffsrs  y.ol  ou  /JITJ  GUSTS' 
xac  /9/s/Tovrec  pWjMw  zo.1  ou  py  loirs'  l7ta%'jvOiy  yap  ~q 
xapota  TOL>  Xo.orj  TOUTOU,  xat  roTc  watv  ftaoiw 
xat  TOU^  d(fdo.AtjLob^  WJTCUV  Ixdfjtfjtuffav,  JAY/  /rors 

tZj  xat  TOIZ  OMTW  axoLxjaxnv,  xat  TTJ  xapoca 
xat  IxtffTptyaHTiv,  xal  Idffopon  oJjTO'j^:  Isa.  \i. 
9,  10.  Ye  shall  verily  hear,  and  shall  not  understand, 
and  shall  verily  see,  and  shall  not  perceive;  for  this 
people's  heart  has  waxed  gross,  and  in  their  ears  they 
are  dull  of  hearing,  and  their  eyes  they  have  closed, 
lest  at  any  time  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and 
should  hear  with  their  ears,  and  should  understand 
with  their  heart,  and  should  convert,  and  I  shall  heal 
them.  III.  2. 

The  quotation  accords  throughout  with  the  Septuagint,  dif 
fering  only  in  the  transposition  of  a  single  word,  putting  obt&v 
after  o^OaA/wj^  instead  of  after  toaiv.  Nor  does  it  any  other 
wise  differ  from  the  Hebrew,  than  by  using  throughout  the 
future  instead  of  the  imperative ;  what  shall  be  done,  accord 
ing  to  the  Septuagint  and  the  Evangelist,  the  prophet  repre 
sents  himself  as  commanded  to  do.  But  this  was  only  a 
stronger  form  of  the  future;  it  ordered  the  melancholy  results 
spoken  of  to  be  accomplished,  because  these  were  so  clearly 
foreseen  as  going  to  take  place,  that  the  Lord  might  as  well 
instruct  His  servants  to  bring  them  about.  Winer,  Gr. 
§  44,  3.  So  that  the  Greek  version  is  but  the  plainer  and 
milder  form  of  the  prophetic  declaration.  In  Acts  xxvii.  20, 
27,  it  occurs  again  in  the  same  form ;  and  in  John  xii.  40, 
it  is  given  historically  as  a  state  of  things  actually  brought 
about  by  the  Lord,  "  He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,"  etc. ;  because 
what,  in  such  circumstances,  was  commanded  to  be  done,  might 
equally  be  represented  as  in  the  eye  of  God  already  in  being. 
In  all  the  places  of  New  Testament  Scripture,  in  which  the 


ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.  403 

original  passage  is  cited,  it  is  applied  to  the  mass  of  the  Jewish 
people  of  the  apostolic  age,  as  if  directly  spoken  of  them. 
But  it  is  clear  from  the  passage  itself,  that  it  was  uttered  re 
specting  that  people  generally,  and  that  the  prophet  spoke  for 
a  long  time  to  come. 

Ch.  xiii.  35.  So  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
by  the  prophet,  saying,  "Avoi^w  Iv  Trapaftolacz  TO  arojia 
/wo,  Ips'jzofjiac  xexpv/jtfjieya  ebro  xarafioZfc:  Ps.  Ixxviii. 
2.  I  will  open  my  mouth  in  parables,  I  will  utter 
things  that  have  been  hidden  from  the  foundation  [of 
the  world.]  II.  5. 

In  the  first  member  the  citation  literally  agrees  with  the 
Septuagint,  and  only  so  far  differs  from  the  Hebrew,  that  it 
puts  parables  in  the  plural,  instead  of  in  the  singular.  In  the 
second  member,  however,  the  Evangelist  very  markedly  dif 
fers  from  the  Septuagint,  which  has  (fOsfzo/mi  npoftXrj para  art 
afr/J^i  I  w^  utter  problems — dark  sentences,  enigmas — from 
the  beginning.  This  is  a  pretty  close  rendering  of  the  origi 
nal  Hebrew,  tng-'M  niTn  njT2x;  excepting  that  "from  of  old," 
"from  ancient  time,"  would  have  been  a  little  closer  than 
"from  the  beginning;"  but  the  meaning  is  the  same.  The 
version  of  the  Evangelist,  which  expresses  the  same  general 
sense,  was  obviously  intended  to  present  a  simpler  meaning, 
and  to  give  a  sort  of  explanation  of  the  dark  sentences  spoken 
of,  and  of  the  ancient  time.  They  were  defined  to  be  things 
that  had  been  hid,  not  properly  understood,  and  that  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world.  The  Ipzuzo/mt  of  the  Evangelist  ex 
actly  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew,  both  signifying  properly  to 
sputter,  or  belch  out,  then  to  give  forth,  or  utter. 

Ch.  xv.  4.  For  God  said,  Ti/jta  TW  r:arepa  xal  Try  fir/rspa' 
xae,  c  0  xaxolofcov  rears  pa  y  /j-yrepa  davdrcf)  TeXeurdro : 
Ex.  xx.  12,  and  xxi.  16.  Honour  father  and  mother; 
and,  He  that  curseth  father  or  mother,  let  him  die  the 
death.  I.  7. 

This  may  justly  be  assigned  to  the  first  class;  for  it  gives 
the  exact  meaning  of  the  original,  only  omitting  the  personal 
pronouns,  thy  and  his,  after  father  and  mother,  merely  on 
account  of  the  citations  being  turned  from  the  form  of  a  direct 


404  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

address  into  that  of  a  general  charge.  The  Septuagint  no 
further  differs,  than  in  having  the  pronouns,  ao>j  in  the  first 
verse  after  father  and  mother,  a>jroi>  in  the  second ;  and  in 
having  TzAzur/jasi  instead  of  rs/eyraro.  In  Mark  vii.  10,  the 
ffo'j  is  retained  in  the  first  part  of  the  citation,  but  not  in  the 
second.  Otherwise,  it  agrees  with  Matthew. 

Ch.  xv.  8,  9.  Esaias  prophesied  concerning  you,  saying,  ^0 

/aoc  oDroc  ro?c  J£e&e<«'v  //s  r^«,  '/j   os  xapdta 

Tib <> pun  dx£%£c  d/r*  l/wu'  fjtd,Tiyv  de 

rec  oioaffxaAiaz,  ivrdtyara  dvdpanr&vi   Isa.  xxix.  33. 

This   people   honoureth   Me   with   the  lips,   but   their 

heart  keeps  far  from  Me ;  but  in  vain  do  they  worship 

Me,  teaching  doctrines,  commandments  of  men.  III.  3. 
The  Evangelist  here  so  nearly  gives  the  words  of  the  Sep 
tuagint,  that  the  passage  may  be  substantially  regarded  as  an 
adoption  of  its  words.  The  only  difference  is,  that  the  Evange 
list  abbreviates  the  commencement  a  little,  puts  the  verb  after 
Aooc  in  the  singular,  Tt/jta.  instead  of  rtftcoffi,  and,  at  the  close, 
while  using  the  same  words,  places  them  in  another  order; 
the  Septuagint  has,  diddaxovrs^ivrd}.fJLa.ra  avdpcoTTwv  xal  dtoo.ff- 
xaAca^.  It  is  in  the  last  part  chiefly,  that  this  version  differs 
from  an  exact  impression  of  the  original.  For  the  sentence, 
"But  in  vain  do  they  worship  Me,  teaching  doctrines,  command 
ments  of  men,"  the  Heb.  is  rm1??  D'BUX  rnyp  YIN  DPNT  <nni? 
literally,  "and  their  fear  toward  Me  has  become  a  precept  of 
men,  taught"  (viz.  by  men,  as  contradistinguished  from  God.) 
An  abrupt  and  somewhat  obscure  sentence,  of  which  the  Sep 
tuagint  version  is  a  kind  of  paraphrase,  giving  what  is  sub 
stantially  the  same  meaning  in  a  fuller  and  plainer  form. 
They  seem  to  have  taken  'nru  for  irini  and  D^T  f°r  the 
second  person  plural  Kal  of  the  verb,  thus  obtaining  the  sense, 
"in  vain  do  they  worship  Me."  This  is  not  distinctly  stated 
in  the  original,  but  it  is  implied;  for  their  fear  toward  God 
being  characterized  as  a  fruit  of  man's  teaching,  necessarily 
bespoke  its  vanity. 

Ch.  xix.  4,  5.  Have  ye  not  read,  that  He  who  made  them 

at  the  beginning,  made  them  male  and  female,  and 

said,  *E»exa  TO'JTOU  xa-ra 


ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.  405 

xal  TYJV  fiyrspa,  xal  xoM'/jd'/jfrerac  rf)  fuvatxl  ayroy,  xal 
£(?oi<Tai  ol  duo  ere  adpxa  [j.'.av ;  Gen.  ii.  24.     Therefore 
shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother,  and  shall  be  joined 
to  his  wife,  and  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh.     II.   6. 
The  Septuagint  is  here  all  but  adopted,  and,  for  any  prac 
tical  purpose,  it  is  of  no  moment  whether  we  should  say,  the 
Hebrew  is  rendered  with  substantial  correctness,  or  the  Sep 
tuagint  is  in  the  main  followed.     The  Septuagint  differs  only 
in  having  a'jroi*  after  Trar^a,  which  the  Evangelist  omits,  and 
in  putting  TrpoffxoU^dijffeTac  ~pb^  Try  fuvac/.a  instead  of  xoX- 
Ir^at-cai  TTJ  fwaal — variations  of  no  moment.     Nor  is  the 
difference  much  greater  from  the  Hebrew:  this  has  his  father, 
and  his  mother;  and  instead  of  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh,  it 
has   simply  they  shall  be  one  flesh ;  by  the  tliey,  however, 
plainly  meaning  the  two  in  the  preceding  context.     The  sense, 
therefore,  is  the  same. 

Ch.  xix.  18,  19.   Ob  ^OVSLXTS^,  ou  f£Of£eua&<;,  etc.     Thou 
shalt  not  kill,  thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  etc., 
precisely  as  in  Ex.  xx.  12,  sq.,  and  Lev.  xix.  18.     I.  8. 
Ch.  xxi.  4,  5.     In  order  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which 
was  spoken  through  the  prophet,  saying,  EixaTs  TTJ 
dufarpi  Zicbv,  'loob,  b  ftaadz'jz  &o>j  spheral  0w,  xpauz 
7.0.1  iirtft.e.fhpc&<;  Ixc  ovou  xai  ITTI  nattov  vlbv  uTzo^o-fioo  \ 
Zech.  ix.  9.     Say  ye  to  the  daughter  of  Zion,  Behold, 
thy  King  cometh  to  thee,  meek  and  mounted  on  an  ass, 
and  on  a  colt  the  foal  of  a  beast  of  burden.     II.  7. 
There  is  a  peculiarity  in  the  commencement  of  this  citation, 
the  "Say  ye  to  the  daughter  of  Zion"  being  found,  not  in 
Zech.  ix.  9,  from  which  what  follows  is  taken,  but  in  Isa.  Ixii. 
11;  so  that  there  is  properly  the  joining  together  of  two  Old 
Testament  passages.     They  both  relate  to  the  same  thing — 
the  one  more  generally,  the  other  more  particularly.     Isaiah 
says,  " Behold  thy  Salvation  cometh;  behold  His  reward  is  with 
Him,  and  His  work  before  Him."     Zechariah  proclaims,  not 
the  salvation  merely,  but  the  Saviour  Himself,  and  His  ap 
pearance  and  character.     It  is,  no  doubt,  on  this  account  that 
the  two  passages  are  thrown  together,  and  considered  as  one; 
although,  as  it  is  merely  the  preamble  of  Isaiah's  that  is  taken, 


406  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

the  prophecy  quoted  as  now  fulfilled  is  strictly  that  of  Zecha- 
riah.  As  given  by  the  Evangelist,  it  does  not  differ  much 
from  the  Septuagint,  but  it  comes  somewhat  nearer  to  the 
original  —  omitting,  however,  one  clause,  "  He  is  just  and 
having  salvation."  The  last  expression  in  the  original,  rrijnK-fa, 
more  exactly  means  son,  or  foal  of  she-asses;  according  to  a 
common  Hebraism,  by  which  the  young  of  a  creature  is  de 
nominated  the  offspring  of  that  kind  of  creatures  generally; 
for  example,  ^pT?-jp,  son  of  the  herd,  offspring  of  cattle.  The 
Evangelist  gives  the  import  more  generally,  foal  of  a  beast 
of  burden  —  including  asses  of  course,  but  not  specifically 
designating  them.  The  Septuagint  had  also  given  the  meaning 
in  a  general  way  —  Ixefiefyxcbz  l~i  u-o^jftov  xal  xtiAov  viov\ 
'and  this,  no  doubt,  was  partly  the  reason  of  the  rendering 
adopted  by  the  Evangelist. 

Ch.  xxi.  13.  And  He  said  unto  them,  It  is  written,  '0 
oJxo:;  xoffeuz  xAfaffsrai'  bJtstz  ok  aurbv 


Isa.  Ivi.  7;  Jer.  vii.  11.  My  house 
shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  make  it  a  den 
of  thieves  (or  robbers.)  I.  9. 

It  is  only  the  first  part  of  this  passage  that  is  properly  a 
citation  ;  and  it  is  a  literal  version  of  a  part  of  Isa.  Ivi.  7.  It 
stands  there,  "My  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer  for 
all  nations."  Matthew  omits  the  "for  all  nations,"  as  Luke 
also  does,  but  it  is  given  in  Mark  xi.  17.  The  other  part  of 
the  passage  is  the  word  of  Christ  Himself,  charging  the  per 
sons  before  Him  with  an  entire  depravation  of  the  character 
of  the  temple  and  a  frustration  of  its  design  ;  but  He  does 
so  in  language  borrowed  from  Jer.  vii.  11,  where  the  prophet 
indignantly  asks  of  the  priests  and  elders  of  his  day,  "Is  this 
house,  which  is  called  by  My  name,  become  a  den  of  robbers 
in  your  eyes?"  Our  Lord  purposely  threw  His  accusation 
into  this  form,  to  impress  on  the  men  of  His  generation,  that 
the  iniquities  of  Jeremiah's  age  had  again  returned,  and  that 
consequently  like  judgments  also  might  be  expected.  It  is 
an  allusion,  however,  to  the  prophet's  words,  rather  than  a 
formal  citation  of  them. 

Ch.  xxi.  16.  Have  ye  never  read,  °  'On  Ix 


ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.  407 

xal  drjka^bvTajv  xarr/pTiGuj  a.woy:  Ps.  viii.  2.  Out  of 
the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings  Thou  hast  perfected 
praise.  III.  4. 

A  transcript  from  the  Septuagint.  The  Hebrew  has  yj;  rncr, 
Thou  hast  founded,  or,  more  generally,  prepared  strength. 
Earlier  commentators  gave  the  sense  of  praise  here,  and  in 
some  other  places,  to  the  noun ;  and  it  is  still  one  of  the  mean 
ings  ascribed  to  it  by  Gesenius.  Such  also  must  have  been 
the  view  of  the  Septuagint  translators.  In  the  passages,  how 
ever,  where  it  is  conceived  to  bear  this  meaning,  it  rather  in 
dicates  the  strength,  by  which  God  gets  praise  to  Himself  over 
His  enemies,  than  the  praise  itself.  In  the  eighth  Psalm  par 
ticularly,  the  idea  of  such  strength  is  appropriate ;  for  chil 
dren  are  plainly  brought  in  there  to  show  how  God,  even  by 
such  weak  and  foolish  instruments,  can  put  to  shame  His 
powerful  adversaries;  the  strength  of  babes  is  sufficient  for 
His  purpose.  So  that  we  must  regard  our  Lord  here  as  adopt 
ing  the  current  version  of  the  Septuagint,  giving  the  general 
sense,  though  not  the  precise  shade  of  meaning  in  the  origi 
nal.  It  merely  differs  in  directing  attention,  more  to  the  re 
sult  aimed  at,  less  to  the  means  of  accomplishing  it. 

Ch.  xxi.  42.  Have  ye  never  read,  AiOov  w  dxedoxc/jtaffav  o 
(HxodofJU&VTes,  O'JTOC;  if^TJO'fj  «V  xsyafyu  fcoviaz'  xapa 
K'jolo'j  ifsvero  aitT'/j,  xal  lo~iv  8a>jju>acrT7]  sv  dtpOaAfJLOiz 
<qjy.(ov:  Ps.  cxviii.  22,  23.  The  stone  which  the  builders 
rejected,  the  same  has  become  the  head  of  the  corner; 
it  was  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in  our 
eyes.  I.  10. 

The  Septuagint  is  followed  verbatim,  as  it  is  also  in  Mark 
xii.  10,  11;  Luke  xx.  17;  and  as  far  as  the  quotation  goes,  in 
Acts  iv.  11;  1  Pet.  ii.  7.  But  the  Septuagint  here  gives  a 
close  translation  of  the  original. 

Ch.  xxii.  24.  Moses  said,  If  any  one  die,  etc.  The  refe 
rence  is  to  Deut.  xxv.  5;  but  the  passage  cannot 
justly  be  regarded  as  a  quotation;  it  merely  professes 
to  give  the  substance  of  a  provision  in  the  Mosaic  law. 
Ch.  xxii.  31,  32.  Have  ye  not  read  that  which  was  spoken 
unto  you  by  God,  saying,  'Efa)  et/ju  o  6eb 


408  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

7.0.1  b  $c6c  yI0aax,  xat  b  $£t>c  'Idxcofi:  Ex.  iii.  6.  I  am 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the 
God  of  Jacob.  I.  11. 

At  once  coincides  with  the  Septuagint,  and  closely  adheres 
to  the  Hebrew,  but  omits  what  is  in  both,  after  I  am,  "  of  thy 
father,"  as  not  bearing  on  the  point  in  hand. 

Ch.  xxii.  37.  Jesus  said  to  him,  'Afa-fazez  Kbptov  rbu  Ozbv 
000  iu  oty  T'7j  xaoola  GOO,  xal  Iv  o)y  TYJ  </>o%fi  GOO,  xat 
Iv  oAfi  diavoia  GOO:  Deut.  vi.  5.     Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  (or  in)  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all 
thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind.     I.  12. 
The  passage  keeps  closer  to  the  Hebrew  than  to  the  Sep 
tuagint,  which  uses  the  preposition  Is  instead  of  Iv.    The  only 
apparent  deviation  from  the  exact  import  of  the  original,  is  at 
the  close,  in  rendering  ^HD-7^3   with  all  thy  mind,  as  strength 
is  the  more  proper  meaning  of  the  noun;  but  it  is  mental 
strength  that  is  meant;  and  consequently  mind  is  really  the 
same,  denoting  the  full  bent  and  purpose  of  soul. 

Ch.  xxii.  39.  'Afounjffsec  ?ov  nhjffiov  GOO  o»c  Gsaorov :  Lev. 
xix.  18.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself. 
I.  13. 

An  exact  translation,  found  previously  in  the  Septuagint. 
Ch.  xxii.  43,  44.  How  then  doth  David  in  Spirit  call  Him 
Lord,  saying,  Ecxsv  Kbpiot;  rw   xopiuj  /wo-  KdOoo  Ix 
poo,  eto$  dv  da)  rol»c  l%dpo&£  GOO  urzoxdrw  TOJV 
aoo:  Ps.  ex.  1.  The  Lord  said  to  my  Lord,  Sit 
Thou  at  My  right  hand,  until  I  make  Thine  enemies 
Thy  footstool.     I.  14. 

Also  an  exact  translation,  and  differing  from  the  Septua 
gint  only  in  having  u-oxdrco  instead  of  U7io~bdcov.  The  sense 
is  the  same  in  both.  The  passage  is  cited  in  the  same  terms 
in  Mark  xii.  36;  Luke  xx.  42;  Acts  ii.  35;  Heb.  i.  13;  but 
in  the  last  three  with  unoxbocov. 

Ch.  xxvi.  31.  For  it  is  written,  Hard^o  rov  Tro.'/^eva,  xal 

dto.Gxoo-tGOrjGovTat  ra  Kptifiara  ri^c  xoifjo/qc:  Zech.  xiii. 

7.     I  will  smite  the  Shepherd,  and  the  sheep  of  the 

flock  shall  be  scattered  abroad.     II.  8. 

The  rendering  hero  is  nearer  to  the  Hebrew  than  the  Sep- 


ST.  MATTHEW'S  GOSPEL.  409 

tuagint,  but  it  differs  in  putting  the  first  verb  in  the  first  per 
son  future  instead  of  in  the  imperative,  as  in  the  Hebrew,  and 
also  in  adding  r^c  jro/jttwyCj  for  which  there  is  nothing  to  cor 
respond,  either  in  the  Hebrew  or  in  the  Septuagirit.  This 
addition  is  omitted  in  Mark  xiv.  27.  The  passage,  as  given 
in  Matthew,  is  merely  the  simpler  and  more  explicit  form  of 
that  in  Zechariah;  by  using  the  first  person  future  of  the  verb 
7rara<7<7o>,  the  action  is  more  distinctly  referred  to  God,  and 
by  calling  the  sheep  the  sheep  of  the  flock,  they  are  more 
pointedly  described  as  the  Lord's  select  people.  Both,  how 
ever,  were  implied  in  the  original  passage. 

Ch.  xxvii.  9,  10.  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken 
by  Jeremy  the  prophet,  saying,  Kal  !7#/9ov  ra  rpiaxovra 
rrp  Tiprp  toy  ren^/^voy,  ov  irtpyjaavTo  anb 
'IffpamJi,  xal  edcoxau  oJjia  et£  TOV  dypbu  roi)  xspa- 
z,  xada  covera^ey  /we  K'jptot;:  Zech.  xi.  13.  And 
they  took  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  the  price  of  Him 
that  was  valued,  whom  they  valued  from  (i.  e.,  on  the 
part  of)  the  children  of  Israel,  and  gave  them  for  the 
potter's  field,  according  as  the  Lord  appointed  me. 
IV.  5. 

The  most  striking  peculiarity  in  connexion  with  this  cita 
tion,  is  the  circumstance  of  its  being  ascribed  to  Jeremiah, 
while  in  reality  it  is  found  in  the  writings  of  Zechariah.  This 
point  will  be  considered  in  Section  Second,  as  it  bears  upon 
the  mode  of  application.  Viewing  the  words  as  those  of  the 
prophet  Zechariah,  there  certainly  are  considerable  differences 
between  the  original  Hebrew  and  the  Evangelist's  version, 
though  they  affect  the  form  only,  and  not  the  substance.  The 
Septuagint  differs  again  so  materially  from  both,  that  it  can 
have  exercised  no  influence.  The  passage  in  Zechariah  runs 
literally  thus,  "And  the  Lord  said  to  me,  Cast  it  (viz.,  the 
price,  mentioned  immediately  before)  to  the  potter,  a  glorious 
price  which  I  was  prized  at  of  them  (0"7v£?,  from  off  them, 
on  their  part;)  and  I  took  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  and  cast 
them  into  the  house  of  the  Lord  for  the  potter  (i.  e.  that  they 
might  be  given  to  the  potter.")  Here,  the  whole  assumes  the 
form  of  a  transaction  between  the  Lord  and  the  prophet,  who 
35 


410  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

personates  the  Divine  Shepherd,  thus  meanly  rated  by  the 
people;  in  the  Evangelist,  the  people  themselves  are  repre 
sented  as  doing  all — as  might,  indeed,  have  been  understood, 
would  be  the  case,  when  the  prophecy  passed  into  the  reality. 
The  change  in  this  respect,  therefore,  is  entirely  of  the  same 
kind  with  that  which  was  made  at  ch.  xi.  10  and  xiii.  14;  a 
change  from  the  first  person  to  the  third,  to  adapt  the  words 
more  palpably  to  the  historical  fulfilment,  and  render  them 
more  transparent  in  meaning.  The  same  object  led  to  the 
other  alterations.  In  the  original,  the  passage  is  very  strong 
ly  enigmatical;  and  so,  instead  of  Jiterally  quoting  it,  the 
Evangelist  presents  a  sort  of  paraphrase  of  the  words.  But 
there  are  in  both  the  same  leading  ideas, — viz.  that  the  Lord's 
representative,  the  Shepherd  of  Israel,  had  a  price  set  upon 
Him — that  this  price  wras  the  miserable  sum  of  thirty  pieces 
of  silver — that  the  transaction  was  gone  into  on  the  part  of 
the  people,  and  consequently  by  those  who  had  to  do  with  the 
house  of  the  Lord — that,  in  token  of  the  baseness  of  the  trans 
action,  the  money  was  to  be  somehow  consigned  to  the  potter 
— and  that  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  to  be  remarkably  seen 
in  the  ordering  of  what  took  place.  The  words  at  the  close, 
"according  as  the  Lord  commanded  me,"  answer  to  the  pre 
amble  in  the  prophet,  "And  the  Lord  said  to  me,"  coupled 
with  the  imperative  form  of  what  follows.  The  disposal  of 
the  price  of  blood  was  described  as  of  the  Lord's  appointment; 
and,  in  like  manner,  in  the  history,  while  Jewish  rulers  alone 
are  mentioned  as  doing  all,  it  is  plainly  implied,  that  the  hand 
of  God  directed  the  course  of  events  into  the  particular  channel 
they  took. 

Ch.  xxvii.  46.  And  about  the  ninth  hour  Jesus  cried  with 
a  loud  voice,  saying,  ' IDCt,  '//>^,  Xap.a  aaftaxdavi\  TOUT&- 

<TT(l>,    0eS  [WO,    0££  [JLOO,  ?Va  Ti  /J.S  IfXaTskTZSZ  J   Ps.   XXU. 

1.  My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me? 

I.  15. 

The  Hebrew  is  exactly  given,  but  given  in  the  words  of  the 
Septuagint.  Mark  only  so  far  differs,  that  instead  of  6h  he 
has  6  #£oc,  and  instead  of  Iva.  ri  he  has  sic  ™.  The  sense  ia 
quite  the  same. 


ST.  MARK'S  GOSPEL.  411 

ST.  MARK'S  GOSPEL. 

Ch.  i.  2,  3.  As  it  is  written  in  Esaias  the  prophet,  'Idou 
rov  d-ffstov  [toy  xpb  itpoadmou  ffou,  o^  xara- 

TtV   OOW  ffOV        0COV7]    fiQWUTOZ;    £V    T7j    IpljfJtqj, 

S  rr^  bobu  Koplou,  sudetaz  xots'iTe  r«c  Tpiftouc 
a\jrorj\  Mai.  iii.  1 ;  Isa.  xl.  3.     Behold  I  send  my  Mes 
senger  before  Thy  face,  who  shall  prepare  thy  way. 
The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye 
the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  His  paths  straight.     II.  9. 
The  Old  Testament  passages  have  been  already  noticed — 
the  latter  at  Matt.  iii.  3,  where  it  appears  in  precisely  the 
same  form;  the  former  at  Matt.  xi.  10,  from  which  the  words 
here  no  further  differ,  than  in  substituting  oc  for  xal  before 
xaTaffxs'jdcrse,  merely  turning  the  second  member  of  the  verse 
from  an  independent  into  a  relative  clause;  and  by  leaving 
out  at  the  close  IpnpoaOiv  GOD.     This  abbreviates  the  passage, 
and  so  far  departs  from  the  original,  but  the  meaning  is  not 
altered.     Eor  the  principle  of  coupling  two  prophets  together, 
and  under  the  name  only  of  one  introducing*quotations  from 
both,  see  the  remarks  in  Section  Second,  No.  VIII.,  near  the 
close. 

Ch.  iv.  12.  In  order  that  /3/s/rovrcC  ftXiit&ffev  xal  ^  I'dcoaiv, 

xal  ctxouovrsc  dxo'jcocrtu  xal  /rjy  0uv towns,  /j:/j  nors.  l~t- 

ffTptyaHrcv  xal  d<fzd'7j   ai>ro1^:  Isa.  vi.  9,  10.     Seeing 

they  might  see,  yet  perceive  not,  and  hearing  might 

hear,  yet  understand  not,  lest  at  any  time  they  should 

convert,  and  it  be  forgiven  to  them.     IV.  6. 

The  Evangelist  does  not  expressly  cite  these  words;  and  we 

only  know,  from  their  substantial  agreement  with  the  passage 

referred  to  in  Isaiah,  that  they  are  a  virtual  quotation  from 

the  prophet.     From  the  manner  in  which  the  passage  is  given, 

however,  it  is  evident  that  the  Evangelist  only  meant  to  give 

the  substance  of  what  was  written.      And  accordingly,  the 

words  actually  produced  are  a  sort  of  compound  of  the  first 

and  second  part  of  the  original  passage;  and,  intent  on  the 

spiritual  import  of  the  prophecy,  the  closing  member,  "  and 

it  be  healed  to  them,"  is  here  turned  into  "and  it  be  forgiven 


412  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

to  them."  This,  doubtless,  was  what  was  really  meant;  but 
in  so  changing  the  passage  here,  and  in  the  other  parts,  it  is 
plain  that  the  Evangelist  thought  it  enough  to  give  the  sub 
stance. 

Ch.  vii.  6,  7.  See.at  Matt.  xv.  8,  9. 
Ch.  vii.  10.   See  at  Matt.  xv.  4. 
Ch.  x.  7.   See  at  Matt.  xix.  5. 
Ch.  xi.  17.   See  at  Matt.  xxi.  13. 
Ch.  xii.  11.  See  at  Matt.  xxi.  42. 
Ch.  xii.  26.   See  at  Matt.  xxii.  32. 

Ch.  xii.  29,  30.  The  first  commandment  of  all  is,  y//*ous, 
Kupioc  6  6e oc  fj/jtcou  Kuptoz  eFc  iffTtv  xal  dya- 
stz  Kupiov  TOU  6s6v  ffo'j  £|  otys  T^C  xapdta^  aoo, 
xal  £%  5A^C  T"'/Z  ^/tyC  000,  xal  £|  otyz  r^c  oca^ola^  000, 
xal  s|  oAyz  T'^C  t&%bo£  (TOO:  Deut.  vi.  4,  5.  Hear,  0 
Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord ;  and  thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  out  of  all  thy  heart,  and  out  of 
all  thy  soul,  and  out  of  all  thy  mind,  and  out  of  all  thy 
strength.  IV.  7. 

It  is  necessary  to  assign  this  quotation  to  the  last  class ; 
since,  while  very  nearly  coinciding  with  the  Septuagint,  it 
still  slightly  differs,  without  following  the  Hebrew.  The  dif 
ference  is  increased  by  the  clause,  ££  o^c  rfz  dcavoiaz  000, 
for  which  there  is  nothing  corresponding  either  in  the  Septua 
gint  or  in  the  Hebrew;  but  it  seems  doubtful,  if  the  clause 
should  form  part  of  the  text.  Tischendorf  omits  it.  Besides 
this,  however,  there  is  the  substitution  of  iayjoz,  for  the 
o'jva/^s^c  of  the  Septuagint.  The  change  renders  it  fully 
more  close  to  the  Hebrew;  and,  (supposing  the  clause  above 
noticed  being  unauthorized,)  the  only  departure  from  the 
exact  translation  of  the  Hebrew  is  in  the  preposition  ^c,  in 
stead  of  Iv — pointing  more  distinctly  to  the  action  of  Divine 
love,  as  being  from  within  outwards,  and  not  simply  to  its 
having  its  seat  within. 

Ch.  xii.  31.  See  at  Matt.  xxii.  39. 
Ch.  xii.  36.   See  at  Matt.  xxii.  43,  44. 
Ch.  xiv.  27.  See  at  Matt.  xxvi.  31. 

Ch.  xv.  28.  And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled,  which  said; 
Kal  fjLsra  avb[j.a)v  i/.ofiadr^  and  lie  was  numbered  with 


ST.  LUKE'S  GOSPEL.  413 

the  transgressors.     The  passage  is  a  literal  translation 
of  Isa.  liii.  12;  but  the  whole  verse  is  wanting  in  the 
best  MSS.,  A  B  C  D  X,  and  it  is  consequently  omit 
ted  in  the  later  editions  of  the  text. 
Ch.  xv.  31.  See  at  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 

ST.  LUKE'S   GOSPEL. 

Ch.  i.  17,  comp.  with  Mai.  iv.  5,  6;  ver.  37,  comp.  Gen. 
xviii.  14;  ver.  46,  comp.  with  1  Sam.  ii.  2,  sq. :  ver. 
76,  comp.  with  Mai.  iii.  1;  ver.  78,  comp.  with  Mai. 
iv.  2; — in  these  and  various  other  parts  of  the  first 
chapter  of  this  Gospel,  there  are  references  to  pas 
sages  in  Old  Testament  Scripture;  but  they  are  con 
cealed  references,  the  meaning  of  the  original  Scrip 
tures  being  adopted,  and  their  language,  with  more  or 
less  exactness,  also  employed,  but  without  any  formal 
citation  of  them.  The  object  of  the  references,  indeed, 
is  as  much  for  the  purpose  of  elucidating  the  Old,  as 
confirming  the  New;  and  hence  therjD  is  a  considera 
ble  freedom  in  the  mode  of  using  the  original. 
Ch.  ii.  L4.  According  to  that  which  is  said  in  the  law  of 
the  Lord,  £c5^oc  Tp&fov&v  y  duo  Vc0<7<7ol>c  TrepeffTspwv : 
Lev.  xii.  8.  A  pair  of  turtle-doves,  or  two  young 
pigeons.  I.  16. 

The  translation  is  as  literal  as  it  could  well  be ;  for  the  ex 
pression  in  the  original,   "two  sons  of  a  pigeon,"  is  but  a 
Hebraism  for  "two  young  pigeons."     The  rendering  of  the 
Evangelist  very  nearly  accords  also  with  the  Septuagint. 
Ch.  iii.  4 — 6.  As  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  words  of 
Esaias  the  prophet,  (Pcovyj  /3oct»vroc  £V  T~/J  Ipijuqj'  kror 
fj.dffa.TS  Try  bobv  Kvpiov^  euOslaz  TZOISITS  r«c  Tpej3ou£ 
auTOi)'  Tidaa  (fdpa*(s  TrtyncodrjCrzTS,  y.a.1    xau  opo$  xal 
/9owvoc  Ta7t$tuw6'/j(T£Tat,  xai  larat  ra  axoAta  eiz  eudslaz, 
%at  a!  Tloa%z'tat  eiz  boob^  teias,  xat  Offierat  TtiLaa  craps 
TO  GcoTTjpcov  Tou   6zou:    Isa.  xl.  3 — 5.     The  voice  of 
one  crying  in   the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  make  His  paths  straight.    Every  valley  shall 
be  filled  up,  and  every  mountain  and  hill  shall  be  made 
35* 


414  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

low;  and  things  crooked  shall  be  [made]  into  straight 
[paths,]  and  rough  ways  into  those  of  smoothness;  and 
all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation  of  God.  III.  5. 

The  citation  so  nearly  agrees  with  the  Septuagint,  that  the 
Evangelist  may  justly  be  held  to  have  followed  it.  The  first 
part  of  the  passage  occurred  also  in  Matthew  and  Mark;  and 
here  too,  as  with  them,  the  departure  from  the  Septuagint 
and  the  Hebrew  merely  consists  in  substituting  WJTOU  for  TOO 
6eoi>  TJfjtwv.  This  Evangelist  alone  gives  the  latter  and  longer 
part  of  the  passage;  and  the  language,  throughout,  with  only 
very  slight  and  superficial  differences,  is  that  of  the  Septua 
gint.  The  Septuagint  has  xduTa  before  ra  axoAca;  it  has 
rpayMo.  instead  of  Tpa%£tcu,  and  Tiedia  instead  of  boobt;  hla^', 
no  difference  in  meaning,  grammatical  diversities  chiefly. 
The  last  clause,  which,  according  to  the  Hebrew,  is,  "And 
all  flesh  shall  see  it  together,"  is  in  the  Septuagint  and  Evan 
gelist,  "And  all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation  of  God."  The 
object  to  be  seen  —  the  salvation  of  God  —  appears  to  have 
been  introduced  for  the  sake  of  explanation.  The  manifesta 
tion  of  God  spoken  of  was  plainly  that  of  God  as  the  Saviour 
of  His  people  ;  and  the  Septuagint  translator  merely  expressed 
what  was  implied  in  the  preceding  context. 

Oh.  iv.  4.     See  at  Matt.  iv.  4. 

Ch.  iv.  8.     See  at  Matt.  iv.  8. 

Ch.  iv.  10,  11.     Sec  at  Matt,  iv.  6. 

Ch.  iv.  12.     See  at  Matt.  iv.  7. 

Ch.  iv.  17-19.  Opening  the  book,  He  found  the  place  where 
it  was  written,  Iluey/m  Kopioo  ITT  l/jis-  oh  ewsxev  e//?:- 


TOL>Z  0uuT£Tpi/jL/j.£vouz  TT^v  xapdlav  —  of  somewhat  doubt 
ful  authority,]  xypv£ou  aiyjjLaXcoTOtz  dyzacv,  xai 


Kopioo  oexrbu:  Isa.  Ixi.  1,  2.  The  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  is  upon  Me  ;  because  that  He  anointed  Me 
to  preach  good  tidings  to  the  poor,  sent  Me  to  heal 
the  broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  deliverance  to  the 
captives,  and  recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set 
at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised,  to  proclaim  the  ac 
ceptable  year  of  the  Lord.  IV.  8. 


ST.  LUKE'S  GOSPEL.  415 

Supposing  the  clause  within  brackets  to  be  a  part  of  the 
text,  the  Evangelist  has  followed  the  Septuagint  precisely  as 
far  as  dvct^s^w;  but  after  that  he  inserts  the  clause,  axoa- 
TzV.at  Ts.0.  £V  a(fi(7£c,  not  found  in  the  Septuagint,  and  in  the 
last  clause,  which  is  in  the  Septuagint,  substitutes  xypusae  for 
xaUccu.  It  is  obvious,  that  the  Septuagint  has  been  mainly 
followed,  even  though  its  rendering  is  not  very  literal.  Thus, 
instead  of  poor,  as  the  persons  preached  to,  the  Hebrew  ex 
presses  rather  humble  or  meek  D"!?>?  ;  and  for  healing  the  broken 
hearted,  it  has  bind  up.  But  in  such  a  connexion  binding  up 
and  healing  convey  much  the  same  meaning,  and  the  poor  must 
plainly  be  understood,  partly  at  least,  in  a  moral  sense.  The 
clause,  "recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind,"  corresponds  to  what 
in  the  authorized  version  of  that  part  of  Isaiah,  runs  uthe 
opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are  bound."  But  the 
original,  nip-npa  Dn>D^  literally  is,  "and  to  the  bound  open- 
opening,"  or  complete  release  from  the  evil  under  which  they 
laboured.  The  evil  itself  is  not  distinctly  expressed;  and  it 
is  only  by  a  sort  of  conjecture  that  prison  has  been  inserted. 
The  verb  is  almost  always  used  of  opening  blind  eyes  (for  ex 
ample,  in  Isa.  xlii.  7,  1.  10,)  which  accounts  for  the  rendering 
of  the  Septuagint.  The  translator  merely  sought  to  bring  out 
the  meaning  more  definitely;  and  even  now — after  all  the 
helps  of  modern  learning  have  been  called  into  requisition — 
this  substantially  is  the  sense  that  approves  itself  to  some  as 
the  best.  Dr.  Alexander  holds,  that  "the  only  natural  sense 
which  can  be  put  upon  the  words,  is  that  of  spiritual  blindness 
and  illumination."  The  clause,  dTtoffzsdae  rzd.  $.v  aysazc, 
appears  to  have  been  imported  from  another  part  of  Isaiah, 
ch.  Iviii.  6.  But  how  it  should  have  come  to  be  introduced 
here,  is  incapable  of  any  proper  explanation. 

Ch.  vii.  27.   See  at  Matt.  xi.  10. 

Ch.  x.  27.   See  at  Matt.  xxii.  37,  and  Mark  xii.  29. 

Ch.  xix.  46,  xx.  17,  xx.  42,  43.  See  at  Matt.  xxi.  13,  xxi. 
42,  xxii.  43,  44. 

Ch.  xxii.  37.  For  I  say  unto  you,  that  this  that  is  written 
must  yet  be  accomplished  in  Me,  on  */al  /JLSTO.  dvo/zaiv 
lloflffO-q:  Isa.  liii.  12.  And  He  was  numbered  with 
the  transgressors.  I.  17. 


416  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEAT. 

An  exact  rendering  of  the  Hebrew,  and  but  slightly  dif 
fering  from  the  Septuagint,  which  has  Jv  rot-  dvo/jioiz. 

Ch.  xxiii.  46.  El$  y^tpaz,  <TOL>  naparlde/jtai  TO  xvsu/jid  /J.OL>  : 
Ps.  xxxi.  6.  Into  Thy  hands  I  commit  My  spirit.  I. 
18. 

The  words  exactly  accord  with  the  original,  and  only  so 
far  differ  from  the  Septuagint,  that  the  latter  has  TtapadrjaofjLat, 
the  future,  instead  of  the  present.  The  received  text  has  also 
the  future;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  other  is  the 
correct  form,  which  is  that  exhibited  in  the  older  MSS. 

ST.  JOHN'S  GOSPEL. 

Ch.  i.  23.  See  at  Matt.  iii.  3.  There  is  here  the  substitu 
tion  of  £bd'jio.T£  for  kroefjuLffOLTe. 

Ch.  ii.  17.  His  disjiples  remembered,  that  it  was  written, 
c#   C/jAoz  Toy  oi'xo'j  GOO  Kara<pdfsrai  /j>z:  Ps.  Ixix.  9. 
The  zeal  of  thine  house  consumes  me.     I.  19. 
It  only  differs  from  the  Septuagint  by  using  the  present  in 
stead  of  the  past  tense  of  the  verb.     The  Septuagint  has  xa- 
T£<faf£.     The  original  is  closely  adhered  to. 

Ch.  vi.  31.   According  as  it  is  written,  v///>rov  ex  rou  obpa- 
vorj    eowxsv  aroTc  yafziv.  Ps.  Ixxviii.  24.     He  gave 
them  bread  out  of  heaven  to  eat.     II.  10. 
The  more  precise  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  is,  "  Corn  of 
heaven  "(DVDtP-]ri)  He  gave   them."     The   Septuagint   corre 
sponds  with  the  Evangelist,  excepting  that  it  was  simply  ovpa- 
uorj,  without  the  preposition  and  the  article. 

Ch.  vi.  45.  It  is  written  in  the  prophets,  Kal  effovrat  xdvrzz 
dcoaxToi  Ozorj:  Isa.  liv.  13.  And  they  shall  be  all 
taught  of  God.  II.  11. 

The  form  of  citation  is  very  general:  "in  the  prophets,"  as 
if  our  Lord  had  various  passages  in  view,  the  substance  of 
•which  alone  He  meant  to  give.  The  words,  however,  so  nearly 
coincide  with  the  passage  in  Isaiah  referred  to,  that  this  is 
justly  regarded  as  the  original.  The  sense  only  is  given ;  the 
more  exact  rendering  is,  "All  thy  children  shall  be  taught  of 
the  Lord;"  with  which  also  the  Septuagint  agrees. 


ST.  JOHN'S  GOSPEL.  417 

Ch.  x.  34  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  on  iyco  ecTtov,  6sol 

iars\     Ps.  Ixxxii.  6.     I  said,  Ye  are  gods.     I.  20. 
In  accordance  both  with  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint. 
Ch.  xii.  14,  15.  According  as  it  is  written,  My  (popou,  &i>?a- 
rqp  Zttoy  cdob  6  (3a<T(h'j<;  wj  ep%srae  xadypevoc  l~i 
irattov  ovou :   Zech.  ix.  9.     Fear  not,  daughter  of  Zion  ; 
behold  thy  King  corneth  to  thee  upon  an  ass's  colt. 
IV.  9. 

Corap.  at  Matt.  xxi.  5.  The  passage  is  here  given  in  a 
somewhat  abbreviated  form,  and  so  as  merely  to  convey  the 
general  sense.  It  hence  does  not  literally  accord  with  the 
Hebrew,  yet  differs  but  slightly  from  it,  as  far  as  the  quota 
tion  goes:  there  is  "fear  not"  instead  of  "rejoice,"  and  "sit 
ting"  instead  of  "riding" — differences  of  no  moment. 

Ch.  xii.  38.   That  the  saying  of  the  prophet  Esaias  might 

be  fulfilled,  which  he  spake,  Kupte,  r/c  iitiareoaev  rfj 

dxofj  fjfJLcijv ;  xal  6  fipayjtov  Kopioo  rive  dnexoAuyOy ;  Isa. 

liii.  1.     Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report?  and  to 

whom  has  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been  revealed?     I.  21. 

The  Septuagint  is  here  followed  in  the  closest  manner;  but 

the  Hebrew,  at  the  same  time,  is  literally  rendered.     Only  the 

passage  begins  with  a  K&pee,  which  is  in  the  Septuagint,  but 

has  nothing  corresponding  in  the  Hebrew. 

Ch.  xii.  43.   See  at  Matt.  xiii.  15. 

Ch.  xiii.  18.  In  order  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled, 
'0  Tpdrfaw  fjier    iijLOi>  rbu  aprov,  iTTflpsv  in    ip.s  xty 
xrepvav  aitrou:  Ps.  xii..  9.     He  that  eateth  bread  with 
Me,  lifted  up  his  heel  against  Me.     II.  12. 
The  words  are  fully  nearer  to  the  Hebrew  than  the  Septua 
gint,  and  differ  from  it  so  little,  that  the  sense  is  no  way  in 
terfered  with.     The  precise  import  of  the  Hebrew  is,  "  He  that 
ate  My  bread,  magnified  against  Me  the  heel."     To  magnify 
the  heel  is  a  peculiar  expression,  and  undoubtedly  means  the 
same  as  the  simpler  phrase,  "Lift  up  the  heel;"  namely,  for 
the  purpose  of  kicking,  or  overthrowing  his  benefactor. 

Ch.  xv.  25.  In  order  that  the  word  might  be  fulfilled,  which 
is  written  in  their  law,  ore  Ipiarjadv  //*  owpscfo:  Psal. 
cix.  3.  They  hated  me  without  a  cause.  II.  13. 


418  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 


The  original  is  wn  '^DpV,  they  fought  against  Me  gratui 
tously,  or  without  a  cause;  \vhich  the  Septuagint  also  ex 
presses  by  l-ottmcrav.  The  fighting,  of  course,  implied  the 
hatred,  and  was  but  the  expression  of  it;  so  that  the  sense  is 
substantially  the  same.  And  possibly  this  mode  of  rendering 
was  adopted  to  indicate  more  distinctly  the  moral  nature  of 
the  conflict,  arid  divert  the  minds  of  the  disciples  from  exter 
nal  weapons  of  violence. 

Ch.  xix.  24.  In  order  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled, 
JesfjieplffavTO  TV.  Ipdred  fj.o>j  la^rc^c?  xal  I/T?  rbv  lp.aTc- 
ff/wu  fj.00  lfio.\ov  jdypov:  Psal.  xxii.  18.  They  parted 
My  garments  among  themselves,  and  upon  My  vesture 
they  cast  lot.  I.  22. 

The  words  are  taken  verbatim  from  the  Septuagint,  which 
here  exactly  render  the  Hebrew. 

Ch.  xix.  36.  In  order  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled, 
'Offrow  o'j  ffuyTpiffiffSTat  auTou:  Ex.  xii.  46.  A  bone 
of  Him  shall  not  be  broken.  I.  23. 

The  words  again  correspond  with  the  Septuagint,  and  give 
a  literal  rendering  of  the  Hebrew,  with  the  trifling  exception 
of  a  change  of  person  and  voice  in  the  verb,  to  agree  better 
with  the  application  made  of  the  prescription:  instead  of  "  Ye 
shall  not  break  a  bone,"  "A  bone  shall  not  be  broken." 
Ch.  xix.  37.  Another  Scripture  saith/^ovra.'  ere  oi>  Izs- 
xevrrjaav:  Zech.  xii.  10.     They  shall  look  unto  Him 
whom  they  pierced.     I.  24. 

An  exact  rendering  of  the  .original,  with  simply  a  change 
of  person,  to  adapt  to  the  occasion,  as  a  word  spoken  of  the 
Messiah,  not  by  Him,  as  in  the  prophet:  hence,  look  unto 
Him,  not,  unto  Me.  The  Septuagint  expresses  it  quite  dif 
ferently,  iTicfiAs&ovTai  Tipbz  /jLSj  a^d'  wv  xar& 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

Ch.  i.  20.  For  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  Feviq- 
Or/rto  /J  Ixavhz  octroi)  Sf>yf20<;,  xac  fj.r)  Iffrco  o  zarotxcov  iv 
ai)T7j\  Ps.  Ixix.  25.  Let  his  habitation  be  desolate, 
and  let  there  be  none  dwelling  in  it.  II.  14. 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  419 

The  sense  is  entirely  that  of  the  original ;  only  what  is  there 
in  the  plural  is  here  applied  to  an  individual,  and  in  the  last 
clause,  "in  their  tents"  is  omitted,  and  a  reference  made  by 
the  pronoun  to  the  habitation  in  the  preceding  clause.  The 
Septuagint  does  not  differ  materially. 

Ch.  i.  20.  And  rrtv  i-iaxo-ty  wjrorj  hdftero  ers/joc:  Ps.  cix. 

8.     Let  another  take  his  office.     I.  25. 
An  exact  version  of  the  original,  and  a  transcript  of  the 
Septuagint,  except  in  having  Idfa-co  for  )A$ot. 

Ch.  ii.  16 — 21.  But  this  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the 
prophet  [Joel,]  Kal  IOTCLL  lv  rat-  sa^dracc;  fjfj.spa.iz-, 
etc.  The  whole  of  this  long  passage  is,  with  a  few  ex 
ceptions,  a  transcript  of  the  Septuagint,  and,  as  the 
Septuagint  is  here  very  faithful  to  the  Hebrew,  it  is 
at  the  same  time  a  close  version.  The  lv  ral~  l(j%. 
fyj.spa.ic;  of  the  Evangelist  is  substituted  for  fj.sra  TWJTO. 
of  the  Septuagint,  and  p-OD^  of  the  Hebrew ;  and  there 
is  a  change  of  order  in  the  two  clauses  of  the  second 
division  of  ver.  17;  at  the  close  of  ver.  18  the  Evange 
list  adds,  xat  7ipo(prjT$.uGooaiV)  apparently  for  the  pur 
pose  of  rendering  more  explicit  the  intended  result  of 
the  Spirit's  effusion,  resuming  what  had  been  in  that 
respect  indicated  before;  and,  lastly,  in  ver.  19,  there 
is  for  iv  obpavqj  of  the  Septuagint,  iv  TOJ  obp.  dvco ;  also 
for  xal  £7Tf  r-^c  J^C,  there  is  xae  cry/ista  ITTC  r^c  rfz  xdra). 
The  slight  additions  are  all  of  an  explanatory  kind; 
they  seem  to  have  been  designed  to  render  the  mean 
ing  at  certain  places  somewhat  more  pointed  and  ex 
plicit.  Though  the  passage  approaches  very  nearly 
to  the  first  class,  it  should  perhaps  strictly  be  ranked 
with  the  second.  II.  15. 

Ch.  ii.  25 — 28.  For  David  saith  respecting  Him,  Ffpoopa)- 
fjLTjV  TOV  Kupeov  iva)~tov  PLOD  dca.~ai;T:6z,  etc.:  Ps.  xvi. 
8,  sq.  The  passage  throughout  is  taken  verbatim 
from  the  Septuagint.  But  the  translation  gives  the 
original  very  faithfully — the  only,  and  that  a  very 
slight  deviation,  being  in  ver.  8,  second  member,  where 
the  original  expresses,  "Because  He  is  at  my  right 


420  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

hand,  I  shall  not  he  moved;"  while  the  other  has, 
"  Because  He  is  at  my  right  hand,  in  order  that  I 
may  not  be  moved."  In  rendering,  however,  so  as  to 
give  the  meaning  at  once  of  the  Hebrew  and  of  the 
Greek,  the  first  clause  should  run,  not  as  in  the  Eng 
lish  version,  "I  foresaw  the  Lord,"  but  "I  proposed," 
or  set,  " the  Lord;"  and  again,  at  ver.  27,  instead  of, 
"Thou  wilt  not  leave  My  soul  in  hell,"  the  exact  im 
port  is,  "Thou  wilt  not  leave  (give  up,  abandon)  My 
soul  to  Hades,"  obx  IfxaTcdety&c  rrp  <!>uyj}v 
adev.  I.  26. 

Ch.  ii.  84,  35.  See  at  Matt.  xxii.  44. 
Ch.  iii.  22,  23.  Moses  said,  "On  TzpoiprjrrjV  UIJLIV 
Kbptot;  6  6eb^  fyjuou  ex  TWV  ddeAip&u  U/JLOJU, 
abToo  dxouffeffds  XO.TO.  TidvTa  oaa  dv  /(atyff 
EGTO.I  os,  xdcra  (poxy  fas  &v  /*y  dx6bar)  TOO 
Ixswou,  l£o).e6pevdyffeTat  ex  TOO  Aaoo:  Deut.  xviii.  15, 
18,  19.  The  Lord  your  God  shall  raise  up  to  you  of 
your  brethren  a  Prophet,  like  me;  Him  shall  ye  hear, 
in  all  things  whatsoever  He  may  speak  to  you.  And 
it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  every  soul  which  will  not 
hear  that  Prophet,  shall  be  destroyed  from  among  the 
people.  IV.  10. 

This  citation  differs  as  remarkably  from  the  Septuagint  as 
that  of  ver.  25 — 28  coincides  with  it;  there  is  some  resem 
blance  between  them  in  the  first  part  of  the  passage,  but  in 
the  latter  part,  not  an  expression  is  the  same.  Ver.  22  is  an 
exact  rendering  of  the  Hebrew,  as  far  as  "Him  shall  ye  hear," 
with  which  Deut.  xviii.  15  terminates.  But  instead  of  pro 
ceeding  right  onwards,  or  passing  over  to  ver.  19,  in  what 
follows  the  substance  is  given  of  the  latter  part  of  ver.  18, 
together  with  ver.  19.  "He  shall  speak  unto  them,"  it  was 
said,  in  ver.  18,  "all  that  I  shall  command  Him."  This  sub 
stantially  is  added  after  the  quotation  from  ver.  15,  "Him  shall 
ye  hear,  in  all  things  whatsoever  He  may  speak  to  you" — the 
things,  namely,  that  the  Lord  should  command  Him  to  speak. 
And  then  the  general  import  of  ver.  19  is  given.  According 
to  the  original  it  is,  "And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whoso- 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  421 

ever  will  not  hearken  to  My  words,  which  He  shall  speak  in 
My  name,  I  will  require  it  of  him."     St.  Peter  makes  it  some 
what  more  specific,  putting  "every  soul,"  instead  of  "whoso 
ever,"  and  "he  shall  be  destroyed  from  among  the  people," 
instead  of  "I  will  require  it  of  him."    Not  different  in  reality. 
Ch.  iii.  25.  Saying  to  Abraham,  Kal  Hv  TOJ  (TTrsp/jtaTi  ffo'j 
iveuXoffjOirjaovTCU  xaaac  o.l  HOLT  peat  r^c  rfc'   Gen.  xxii. 
18.     And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
be  blessed.     II.  16. 

It  follows  the  Septuagint,  with  the  exception  of  ;rar/>rttt,  which 
it  substitutes  for  Idvy.  The  Hebrew  has  V^,  and  consequently 
agrees  with  the  Septuagint.  In  the  original  call,  however,  as 
given  at  Gen.  xii.  3,  the  term  for  families  is  used,  although 
the  Septuagint  there  uses  <puXal. 
Ch.  iv.  11.  See  at  Matt.  xxi.  42. 

Ch.  iv.  25,  26.  Who  didst  speak  through  the  mouth  of  thy 
servant  David,  f//va  rl  l<ppua£av  Hdyrj,  xae  Aaoc  lf£s%£- 
xsi,d',  nap&ffT'qffav  o!  flacrch'cz  ~"fi  rfz,  xal  o!  dp- 
c  ffui/y%dyffav  ITZC  TO  auro  xara  TO~J  Kuplou  xal  xara 
TO~J  Xptaroit  a'JTOv:  Psal.  ii.  1,  2.  Why  did  heathen 
rage,  and  peoples  imagine  vain  things?  The  kings  of 
the  earth  stood  forth,  (or  up,)  and  the  rulers  were  ga 
thered  together,  against  the  Lord  and  against  His 
Christ.  I.  27. 

A  literal  transcript  of  the  Septuagint,  and  also  a  fair  ver 
sion  of  the  Hebrew. 

Ch.  vii.  3,  6,  7,  26,  27,  28,  32,  33,  34,  35,  37,  40,  42,  43,  49, 
50: — In  all  these  verses  the  words  of  Old  Testament 
Scripture  are  referred  to,  and  cited  in  the  course  of 
Stephen's  speech.  With  only  one  or  two  slight  verbal 
exceptions,  the  Septuagint  is  followed,  in  which  the 
plain  sense  of  the  Hebrew  for  the  most  part  is  given. 
But  as  the  passages  are  recited  in  a  merely  historical 
way,  and  no  specific  application  made  of  them,  further 
than  what  is  implied  in  their  having  a  place  in  such  a 
speech,  it  is  unnecessary  to  exhibit  them  here  in  detail. 
No  principle  of  interpretation  is  involved  in  the  use 
made  of  them  by  Stephen. 
36 


422  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

Ch.  viii.  32,  33.  Here  again  there  is  a  simple  production  of 
an  Old  Testament  passage,  as  found  in  the  extant  Greek 
translation,  and. perused  by  the  eunuch  in  his  carriage. 
The  version  accords  generally,  though  not  exactly,  with 
the  Hebrew. 

Ch.  xiii.  32,  33.  And  we  declare  unto  you  glad  tidings,  how 
that  the  promise  which  was  made  unto  the  fathers,  God 
hath  fulfilled  the  same  unto  us  their  children,  having 
raised  up  Jesus,  as  also  in  the  second  Psalm  it  is  writ 
ten,  Y[6$  JJLOU  el  <TL>,  Ifw  ffypepov  ^zfs^xd  as:  Ps.  ii. 
7.  Thou  art  My  Son,  to  day  have  I  begotten  Thee. 
I.  28. 

The  words  are  precisely  those  of  the  Septuagint,  which  closely 
render  the  Hebrew.  As  to  the  form  of  quotation,  some  MSS. 
have  Iv  TOJ  xpcorqj  <£>atyw,  which  is  preferred  by  Lachmann 
and  Tischendorf.  If  this  be  the  correct  reading,  the  apparent 
incorrectness  is  easily  accounted  for  by  the  known  practice  of 
the  Jews,  to  regard  the  first  psalm  as  a  sort  of  general  intro 
duction  to  the  whole  collection.  In  that  case,  what  is  now 
reckoned  the  second  psalm  would  naturally  be  viewed  as  the 
first. 

Ch.  xiii.  34.  But  that  He  raised  Him  from  the  dead,  no  longer 
going  to  return  to  corruption,  He  spake  after  this  man 
ner,  on  dcoaco  u/juv  ra  oata  Ja'jelo  ra  ~{ffrd:  Isa.  Iv.  3. 
I  will  give  you  the  sure  mercies  of  David.     I.  29. 
The  words  again  are  those  of  the  Septuagint,  which  corre 
spond  with  the  Hebrew;  only  otooto  is  introduced  at  the  be 
ginning,  as  necessary  to  give  a  complete  sense. 
Ch.  xiii.  35.  See  at  ch.  ii.  27. 

Ch.  xiii.  40,  41.  Beware,  therefore,  lest  that  come  upon  you, 
which  is  spoken  of  in  the  prophets,  v/(?£rc,  olxaT 
rai,  xal  OwjrmvaTS  xac  d.(pa^ia0^rz'  on  l<>*(ov  i 
lyuj  iv  r«?c  fjusfiatz  u/jt(oi<>,  sfrfoi/  o  ou  /J.TJ  ~t0T£UffaTe  lav 
TiZ  ixdiypfiW.  ufj.1v'.  Hab.  i.  5.  Behold,  ye  despisers, 
and  wonder  and  vanish;  for  I  will  work  a  work  in  your 
days,  a  wjrk  which  ye  will  in  no  wise  believe,  if  one 
should  declare  it  to  you.  III.  6. 
The  Septuagint  is  followed  with  such  slight  variations  as 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  423 

are  scarcely  worth  noticing.  It  omits  the  xal  i-ej&eif'a-cs  of 
the  Septuagint,  which  form  its  second  clause,  and  also  dav/id- 
0>a,  which  it  has  after  dau/jidcraTe.  It  also  inserts  a  second 
l^fo\> — l()fov  o  OL>  frrj — which  is  wanting  in  the  Septuagint. 
The  Hebrew  expresses  substantially  the  same  meaning,  but 
instead  of  "  ye  despisers,"  has  "ye  among  the  heathen," — 
which  undoubtedly  points  to  the  moral  condition  of  the  per 
sons  addressed,  their  heathenish,  ungodly  state  of  mind,  rather 
than  to  their  local  position  ;  and  it  also  has  nothing  precisely 
corresponding  to  the  dyadic  6  Y^TZ  of  the  Greek.  ^The  idea  con 
veyed  by  this  is  implied  rather  than  expressed  in  the  original. 
That  the  passage  is  quoted  so  generally  as  "from  the  pro 
phets,"  is  to  be  explained,  partly,  from  the  circumstance  to 
be  noticed  in  the  elucidation  of  Matt.  xxi.  5, — that  the  minor 
prophets  are  scarcely  ever  individually  mentioned;  and  partly 
because  there  is  probably  a  reference  to  the  very  similar  pro 
phecy  of  Isa.  xxviii.  14,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  foun 
dation  of  that  in  Habakkuk. 

Ch.  xiii.  47.  For  so  hath  the  Lord  commanded  us,  Tedeixd 
tfc  £££  (fco^  IdvoJV)  Toy  eJuac  ffs  £c^  0a)TTjpio.v  sco^  iayd- 
ro'j  TY^  frfi:  Isa.  xlix.  6.     I  have  appointed  Thee  for 
a  light  of  the  Gentiles,  that  Thou  shouldst  be  for  sal 
vation  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.     I.  30. 
The  Septuagint  is  again  followed,  excepting  that  the  He 
brew  is  more  closely  rendered  at  the  beginning,  by  the 
xd  <7£,  for  which  the  Septuagint  has  dsocoxd  as  ec 
fsvouZ'     The  passage  before  us  differs  from  the  Hebrew  only 
in  the  latter  expressing  My  salvation,  instead  of  simply,  sal 
vation. 

C.h.  xv.  16,  17.  As  it  is  written,  Merer.  raOrcc  dva<7Tpi(pto  xac 
dvoexodofjojffw  rrtv  axr^v  dausid  rrp  TieTtTcoxu'co.v'  xai  rd 
zo.Ts.amp.p.ei'a  avrrfi  dvoexodofflffa),  xai  dvopdcbaco  wjrrjV 
onto^  dv  i.x^7jT~fj(tco(Jti>  of  xardAotTrot  TWU  d&ftp&ftQtV  TOV 
oVj  xal  Travra  ra  edvy  i<p*  oE»c  SmxextyTat  TO  ovoud 
ITC  adro'JCj  ^sj"se  Kupto^  Tioccou  TCVJTO.:  Amos  ix. 
11,  12.  After  these  things  I  will  return,  and  will 
build  up  the  tabernacle  of  David,  which  has  fallen 
down ;  and  I  will  build  again  the  ruins  thereof,  and  I 


424  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

will  set  it  up;  so  that  the  residue  of  men  may  seek 
the  Lord,  and  all  the  Gentiles  upon  whom  My  name 
is  called,  saith  the  Lord,  who  doeth  all  these  things. 
III.  7. 

The  citation  is  made  almost  verbatim  from  the  Septuagint; 
but  instead  of  fisra  TOUTO.  avaorps^w,  the  commencement,  the 
Septuagint  has  iv  TTJ  f][J-£pa  £xz!vfl.  The  latter  is  what  the 
original  expresses;  and  the  explanation  of  the  diversity  here 
in  the  address  of  James  is,  no  doubt,  to  be  found  in  the  desire 
to  indicate  byefly  the  period  to  which  the  prophecy  referred, 
as  implied  in  the  context:  it  was  to  be  after  the  times  of  judg 
ment  and  humiliation  there  threatened  had  run  their  course. 
The  Septuagint  also,  at  least  in  most  MSS.,  wants  the  rov 
Kupiov  in  the  second  verse,  though  this  seems  requisite  to 
complete  the  meaning;  and  it  has  after  the  avopdtooco  abr/jv, 
what  is  omitted  here,  %add>z  at  fa£pat  rorj  aiioioz,  as  in  the 
days  of  eternity,  or  of  old.  Down  to  this  point,  or  through 
out  the  first  of  the  two  verses  quoted,  the  Septuagint  renders 
the  original  closely;  but  after  that  it  deviates  very  consider 
ably  from  the  Hebrew,  though  it  still  expresses  the  general 
sense.  The  meaning  of  the  original,  however,  is  so  plain, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  it  should  have  been  so 
rendered.  "So  that  they  may  possess  (or  inherit,  the  rem 
nant  of  Edom,  and  of  all  the  heathen" — this  is  what  in  the 
Septungint  is  turned  into,  "So  that  the  residue  of  men  may 
seek  [the  Lord],  and  all  the  Gentiles."  It  has  been  supposed 
they  might  have  had  a  text,  of  which  that  was  the  literal 
rendering;  but  this  is  doubtful,  as  all  the  MSS.  give  the 
reading  of  the  received  text.  The  reasons  for  the  deviation 
can  be  only  conjectural.  But  as  it  is  clear,  that  Edom  was 
particularized  by  the  prophet,  only  on  "account  of  the  enmity 
which  animated  the  heathen  toward  Israel  having  assumed 
in  them  its  keenest  form, — so  that  uEdom  and  all  the 
heathen"  was  as  much  as  "all  the  heathen,  not  excepting 
even  Edom," — consequently,  the  rendering  of  the  Septuagint, 
adopted  by  Luke,  "the  residue  of  men  and  all  the  heathen," 
comes,  though  in  a  general  way,  to  much  the  same  thing;  it 
denotes  all  sorts  of  heathen,  wherever  a  residue  of  the  old 


ROMANS.  425 

tribes  might  be  found.  And  tbat  instead  of  Israel  possessing 
them,  they  should  be  represented  as  themselves  making  in 
quiry  after  God,  the  "great  fact  is  still  indicated,  that  there 
was  to  be  an  entire  change  of  relationship  between  the 
covenant  people  and  the  heathen ;  instead  of  hating  and 
fighting  against  them,  the  heathen  were  to  make  suit  to  them, 
arid  press  forward  to  obtain  a  share  in  their  peculiar  privi 
leges.  But  this,  in  substance,  is  all  one  with  Israel  possessing 
them,  in  the  sense  meant  by  the  prophet;  he  meant,  that 
Israel  was  to  become,  in  what  was  really  important,  the  head 
of  all  the  nations,  and  all  were  to  come  to  them  for  blessing. 
So  that,  while  the  import  is  very  much  generalized  in  the  ren 
dering  adopted,  the  leading  ideas  of  the  prophet  are  still  con 
veyed.  And  they  are  quite  apposite  to  the  point  at  issue; 
for  they  imply,  that  there  were  to  be  tribes  of  men  seeking 
after  God,  yea,  over  whom  His  name  was  called  as  peculiarly 
His  own,  who  yet  were  formally  different  from  the  family  of 
Israel. 

Ch.  xxviii.  26,  27.     See  at  Matt.  xjii.  14. 

ROMANS. 

Ch.  i.  17.  As  it  is  written,  "0  as  dixwoc  Ix  irto^fac  ffitrsrae  i 
Hab.  ii.  4.  But  (or,  now)  the  just  shall  live  of  faith. 
II.  17. 

According  to  the  original  it  is,  And  the  just  shall  live  by 
his  faith  ;  or,  as  it  may  be  rendered,  Arid  the  righteous  through 
his  faith  shall  he  live.  The  apostle,  undoubtedly,  gives  the 
virtual  import;  for,  as  the  suffix  in  the  original,  iro^K,  un 
doubtedly  refers  to  the  righteous  person,  the  apostle  could, 
without  the  least  injury  to  the  sense,  leave  out  the  his.  The 
saying  is  again  quoted  in  Gal.  iii.  11,  and  Heb.  x.  38.  The 
Septuagint  only  differs  from  the  apostle's  citation  by  inserting 

after  xufrstbz. 

Ch.  ii.  24  and  iii.  4  adopt  the  words  of  Isa.  Iii.  5,  and  Ps. 
li.  4,  as  given  by  the  Septuagint,  and  correctly  ex 
pressing  the  original;  but  the  words  are  simply  appro 
priated  as  suitable  to  the  subject  of  the  apostle's  re- 
36* 


426  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

marks,  and  are  not  introduced  as  having  any  special 
or  prophetical  reference  to  it. 

Ch.  iii.  10 — 18  is  a  series  of  quotations,  in  like  manner, 
from  Ps.  xiv.  v.  9,  cxl.  3,  x.  7 ;  Isa.  lix.  7,  8;  Ps. 
xxxvi.  1, — cited  merely  as  proof  texts  on  the  subject 
of  human  depravity  and  corruption,  and  without  any 
peculiar  Christian  application.  They  are  all  taken 
from  the  Septuagint,  with  occasional  slight  alterations, 
which  indicate  no  material  difference  of  meaning,  and 
call  for  no  explanatory  remark. 

Ch.  iv.   3.  For  what   saith   the   Scripture,  ' 'ExlffTevffsv  as 
^Afipadp.  rqj  0£(jj,  xal  IXoyiffQy  aurw  ec^  dr/.aiOG>jvrty. 
Gen.  xv.  6.     And  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  to  him  for  righteousness.     I.  31. 
The  rendering  is  that  of  the  Septuagint,  and  it  gives  the 
original  with  sufficient  exactness.     What  in  the  one  is  "  He 
counted  it,"   is  merely  put  passively  in  the  other,  "it  was 
counted  to  him." 

Ch.  iv.  6,  7.  According  as  also  David  saith,  Ala'/dpcot  a>v 
d(f>£6ycriv  a!  dvo/j.!a.!,  7.o.\  coy  inexaXuyd'qffa.v  al  cLfmp- 
riac  uaxdpioz  dvr^o  w  oi>  pr)  AofcG^Tat  Kupto$  &pa.pTiav\ 
Ps.  xxxii.  1,  2.  Blessed  are  they  whose  transgres 
sions  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  pardoned: 
blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  does  not  impute 
sin.  I.  32. 

The  plural  is  here  adopted  in  the  first  of  the  two  verses, — 
"  blessed  they — sins — transgressions ;  "  while  the  original  has 
the  singular.  But  the  words  are  there  evidently  used  in  a 
collective  sense ;  so  that  there  is  no  real  difference.  The 
apostle  follows  the  Septuagint  exactly. 

Ch.  iv.  17.  As  it  is  written,  ore  r.aripa.  xoMcou  Idvcov  reOzt- 
xd  ffs:  Gen.  xvii.  5.  A  father  of  many  nations  have 
I  made  thee.  I.  33. 

From  the  Septuagint,  and  a  literal  rendering  of  the  He 
brew. 

Ch.  iv.  18.  As  it  is  written,  O'JTCO^  1'ara.i  TO  a^ip^o.  aoo: 

Gen.  xv.  5.     So  shall  thy  seed  be.      I.  34. 
The  same  as  the  preceding  example. 


ROMANS.  427 

Ch.  viii.  36.  As  it  is  written,  f/ On  evsxev  aou  Oayarou/ieOa 
o):rtv  ryv  falpav,  iXofiffdrjfiev  w-  xpopara  atfaf/fi:  Ps. 
xliv.  23.     For  Thy  sake  we  are  killed  all  the  day  long, 
we  are  counted  as  sheep  for  slaughter.     I.  35. 
Again  quite  literal. 

Ch.  ix.  7,  9,  12,  13,  15,  contain  passages  from  Gen.  xxi. 
12,  xviii.  10,  xxv.  23;  Mai.  i.  2,  3;  Ex.  xxxiii.  19, 
•which  are  merely  historically  referred  to,  and  are  cited 
almost  uniformly  in  the  words  of  the  Septuagint. 
Ch.  ix.  17.  For  the  Scripture  saith  to  Pharaoh,  °  Ore  eez 
aura  Toi)ro  lEifretpd  <rs,  OTTWC  ^del^atftau  Iv  <roc  rty  ou- 
vafj.iv  /JIOL>,  xal  OTZCO^  deaffsXfl  TO  ovo/md  /JLOU  iv  TiCicr}  rfj 
"j"7j :  Ex.  ix.  16.  For  this  same  thing  did  I  raise  thee 
up,  that  I  might  show  forth  in  thee  My  power,  and 
that  My  name  might  be  declared  throughout  all  the 
earth.  I.  36. 

Here  the  Septuagint  is  not  precisely  followed  in  the  first 
part,  and  the  rendering  is  more  close  to  the  Hebrew.  The 
Septuagint  has  euexsu  TO'JTOO  deerypijSqc,  ?va. 

Ch.  ix.  25.  As  He  saith  also  in  Osee,  Kate&w  rbv  ou  la.6y 
fwj,  Aaov  fj.o'j,  %al  rrp  oux  iff(arr}p.ivqV)   'f^aTir^eur^: 
Hos.  ii.  23.     I  will  call  the  not-My-people,  My  peo 
ple;  and  the  not-beloved,  beloved.     IV.  11. 
Here  again  the  Septuagint  is  departed  from,  notwithstanding 
that  it  gives  a  pretty  literal  version.     The  exact  rendering 
of  the  Hebrew  is,  "I  will  have  pity  on  the  not-pitied  (lo-ruha- 
mah,)  and  will  say  to  the  not-My-people  (lo-ammi,)  My  peo 
ple  art  thou."     The  Septuagint  in  the  first,  expresses,  I  will 
love  the  not  loved,  d^a^aa)  rrp  oux  fjToary/jt£vqv ;  otherwise, 
it  is  quite  exact.     The  apostle  gives  substantially  the  same 
meaning,  but  he  expresses  the  sense  somewhat  paraphrasti- 
cally. 

Ch.  ix.  26.  Kal  e'ffrai  ev  ~w  TOTTOJ  ob  lf>f>£0y  aL»~o^?  Ol>  )uo^ 
[toy  UIJLZIZ,  zx£  xhjdyffourcu  ulot  OeoiJ  ^WVTOZ:  Hos.  i. 
10.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  in  the  place  where 
it  was  said  to  them,  Ye  are  not  My  people,  there  shall 
they  be  called  sons  of  the  living  God.  I.  37. 
The  Septuagint  is  here  followed,  excepting  that  instead  of 


428  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

Ixst  xtyO.)  it  has  xty.  xal  afoot.     But  the  Hebrew  is  faithfully 
rendered. 

Ch.  ix.  27,  28.  But  Esaias  crieth  for  Israel,  '/?«y  o  d.ptQpb$ 
rcijy  olcov  ' IcroaYjA  d»c  $  dfJLtJtoz  TY^  daAaaar^,  f o  bnofafjifjia 

ffOjOfosTOl'    AOfOV    J(L()    (T'JVTZAwy    XO.l    ai)VT£[JLVWV    cV    0^- 

xawff'jyfi'  on  Aoyov  ff'jvTeT/j.r//ji£yoy  Kotijast   Kupios  Ixe 
T'7jZ  T^:  -"-sa"  x<  22,  23.     If  the  number  of  the  children 
of  Israel  be  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  the  remnant  shall 
return;  for  He  is  finishing  His  word  and  cutting  it 
short  in  righteousness;  because  a  word  cut  short  will 
the  Lord  accomplish  in  the  earth.     IV.  12. 
The  citation  approaches  pretty  nearly  to  the  Septuagint, 
yet  does  not  exactly  accord  with  it;  nor  does  it,  in  the  latter 
part,  give  more  than  the  general  sense  of  the  Hebrew.     The 
first  part  is  a  close  rendering:  If  the  number  of  the  children 
of  Israel  be  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  (referring  to  the  promise 
to  Abraham,)  the  remnant  (viz.  that  mentioned  in  the  verse 
immediately  preceding,   u  the  remnant  shall  return  unto  the 
mighty  God," — this,  but  only  this,  not  the  countless,  sand- 
like  multitude)  shall  return.     Then  the  reason  follows;  which 
in  the  original  runs,  For  the  Lord  God  of  hosts  is  making  a 
consumption,  and  (or,  even)  determined,  in  the  midst  of  all 
the  earth.     The  sentence  is  obscure ;  and  a  paraphrastic  ren 
dering  is  given  of  it  by  the  apostle.     It  evidently  points  to  a 
work  of  judgment,  which  the  Lord  was  going  to  execute  ge 
nerally  in  the  earth,  and  from  which  the  covenant-people  were 
by  no  means  to  escape:  Even  in  respect  to  them,  He  was  not 
going  always  to  forbear;  and,  while  He  saved  a  remnant,  He 
would,  at  the  same  time,  accomplish  a  work  of  judgment  upon 
the  many.     This  also  is  what  is  expressed  by  the  apostle,  and 
more  distinctly.    The  Lord  was  going,  according  to  it,  to  bring 
His  word  to  an  issue — an  abrupt  and  determinate  issue — that 
would  signally  display  His  righteousness;  implying,  of  course, 
from  the  connexion,  that  Israel  was  to  share  in  the  severity 
of  its  inflictions.     So  that  this  does  not  differ,  in  sense,  from 
the  consumption  determined,  which  the  literal  rendering  yields. 
Ch.  ix.  29.   And   as  Esaias  said  before,  El  /Jtrj  Kuptoz  aa- 


ROMANS.  429 


Oy/jtsv,  xal  we  Po/ioppa  dv  w^occodr^i^:  Isa.  i.  9.  If 
the  Lord  of  hosts  had  not  left  us  a  seed,  we  should 
have  become  like  Sodom,  and  should  have  been  made 
like  to  Gomorrha.  III.  8. 

The  Septuagint  is  here  followed  verbatim:  it  differs  from 
the  Hebrew  only  in  one  word,  in  rendering  a  seed,  a-zippo., 
what  in  the  original  is  remnant,  "P&.  It  means,  of  course, 
barely  a  seed  —  a  remnant  so  small,  that  it  should  merely 
suffice  for  preserving  a  seed.  So  that  the  difference  is  only 
in  form. 

Ch.  ix.   33.   As  it  is  written,  '  Idob  rid  rj  tie  iv  2ta>v  tidov 

Ttpbffxo/jtfjiaTOZ  xal  xirpav  GxavodXoo,  xal  6  TrtffTS'Jcyv  CTT' 

aurw   o'j  jcaTCuaOuvO'qffeTfu:  Isa.  xxviii.  16,  combined 

with  ch.  viii.  14.     Behold   I  lay  in   Sion  a  stone  of 

stumbling  and  rock  of  offence,  and  he  that  believeth 

on  Him  shall  not  be  put  to  shame.     IV.  13. 

There  are  here  brought  together  two  related  passages  of  the 

prophet  Isaiah  ;  the  principal  one  referred  to  is  ch.  xxviii.  16, 

but  certain  epithets,  descriptive  of  the  stone  in  respect  to  those 

who  refused  to  use  it  aright,  are  borrowed  from  an  earlier  pas 

sage,  in  ch.  viii.  14.     There  alone  is  the  stone  designated  "a 

stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of  offence."     The  apostle,  com 

bining  thus  two  passages  together,  uses  some  freedom,  as  might 

be  expected,  in  the  manner  of  quotation.     He  does  not  adhere 

closely  either  to  the  Septuagint  or  to  the  Hebrew.     The  He 

brew,  indeed,  is  so  nearly  followed,  that  it  may  be  said  to  be 

all  but  literally  rendered.     The  only  deviation  worth  noticing 

is  in  the  last  expression:  the  Hebrew  is  trn;  N'S,  not  shall 

make  haste  ;  while  the  apostle,  after  the  Septuagint,  gives  it, 

"shall  not  be  put  to  shame."     Not  different  in  meaning,  how 

ever;  for  the  making  haste  of  the  prophet  undoubtedly  points 

to  that  hasty  flight  which  they  should  betake  to  who  made, 

not  this  foundation-stone,  but  lies,  their  refuge:  these  should 

o 

very  soon  be  found  in  a  state  of  trepidation  and  flight;  while 
the  others,  resting  calmly  on  God's  foundation,  should  stand 
fast,  as  having  no  occasion  for  rash  and  precipitate  measures. 
The  last  clause  is  again  cited  at  ch.  x.  11. 

Ch.  x.  5.  For  Moses  saith,  OTL  o  xor/jaaz  OJJTCF.  dudpwnoz 


430  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

£yffZT0.(  Iv  afco'cz :  Lev.  xviii.  5.     The  man  that  doeth 
these  things  shall  live  therein.     I.  38. 
The  precise  words  of  the  Septuagint,  but  also  correspond 
ing  with  the  Hebrew. 

Ch.  x.  6 — 8.  But  the  righteousness   of  faith   speaketh   on 
this  wise,  My  efar^  &v  ?fi  xapoia  GOD,  r/c  ava^'tfsrar  sc^ 
rov   GU(>avbv ;    robr    IGTIV  XpiG~bv  x«r«^«/'£?v  77,  r/c 
c£  TTJV  CL^OGGOV  ;  TOUT   IGTIV  Xficarby  Ix 
. — ' ' Efpjz  GOO   TO  p7jp.d  IGTIV,  lv  TW 
c  GOO  xal  eu  TTJ  xapdla  GOD:   Deut.  xxx.  12,  sg. 
Do  not  say  in  thy  heart,  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ? 
That  is,,  to  bring  Christ  down  again.      Or,  who  shall 
descend    into   the   abyss?     That   is,  to  bring   Christ 
again  from  the  dead.     (But  what  saith  it?)    The  word 
is  nigh  thee,  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart. 
This  is  not  a  quotation  in  the  strict  sense,  but  merely  the 
free  use  of  certain  words  in  Deuteronomy,  which  conveyed  a 
meaning  adapted  to  the  apostle's  purpose,  and  is  intermingled 
with  comments    or    explanatory  remarks   of  his   own.      The 
parts  employed  are  given  pretty  nearly  in  the  version  of  the 
Septuagint. 

Ch.  x.  11.   See  at  ch.  ix.  33. 

Ch.  x.  15.  As  it  is  written,  '.(?c  ojpaccx  of  TTOOSC  ro>v  euaf- 
Y£k£ofJiiva)V  dyaOd:  Isa.  lii.  7.     How  beautiful  are  the 
feet  of  those  that  publish  good  things.     I.  39. 
The   original   is   here  exactly  rendered,   only  the  apostle 
omits  "  upon  the  mountains,"  as  not  required  for  his  purpose. 
The  Septuagint  differs  considerably,  and  mistakes  the  mean 
ing  of  the  first  part,  rendering  w^  wjta  Ixi  TOW  opscov. 

Ch.  x.  16.  For  Esaias  saith,  Kupts,  r/c  Ixlffrsuffev  T'/J  axofj 
fjfjLcov;  Isa.  liii.  1.  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  re 
port?  I.  40. 

A  transcript  of  the  Septuagint,  and  a  close  rendering  of 
the  Hebrew. 

Ch.  x.  18.  Eiz  KU.GO.V  TYJV  ?7jV,  x.T.L  An  exact  citation  of 
the  words  in  Ps.  xix.  5,  as  found  in  the  Septuagint, 
and  also  correctly  representing  the  Hebrew;  but  the 
words  are  only  appropriated,  not  formally  quoted. 


ROMANS.  431 


Ch.  x.  19.  First  Moses  saith,  'Efco 

obx  e#ve.',   Ini   ZOust  da'J^STuj  napopfe<f>  b/jt£z:   Deut. 

xxxii.  '21.     I  will  move  you  to  jealousy  by  [what  is] 

no-people;  by  a  foolish  people  I  will  provoke  you  to 

anger.     I.  41. 

A  close  translation,  but  taken  from  the  Septuagint. 
Ch.  x.  20,  21.  But  Esaias  is  very  bold,  and  saith,  EbpiOyv 

[sv]  ro?c  I/JLS  /jq  tyrouaev,  IfupawjC  tyevtifajv  ro^  I  jus 
But  to    Israel    he   saith,  *  Otyv   rr^ 


xal  dwtMfOVTa:  Isa.  Ixv.  1,  2.  I  was  found  of  them 
that  sought  Me  not,  I  became  manifest  to  them  that 
asked  not  after  Me.  All  day  long  I  stretched  forth 
My  hands  unto  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people. 
*  III.  9. 

The  Septuagint  is  followed  in  both  verses,  only  the  order 

is  somewhat  varied;  what  forms  the  first  clause  here  being 

the  second  in  the  Septuagint,  and  the  otyv  rr{v  fjfjLSfKW  in  the 

second  verse  being  thrown  farther  back.     But  the  import  of 

the  Hebrew  is  not  exactly  given.     According  to  it  the  first 

verse  is,  "  1  was  sought  of  those  that  asked  not,  I  was  found 

of  those  that  sought  Me   not."     And,  in  the   closing  part  of 

the  second  verse,  there  is  but  one  epithet  applied  to  the  peo 

ple  —  not  "disobedient  and  gainsaying,"  but  simply  "rebel 

lious."     There  is  no  real  difference  of  meaning;  but  the  sense 

is  somewhat  more  paraphrastically  expressed  in  the  Greek. 

Ch.  xi.  3,  4.   Two  passages  from  Elijah's  history  are  here 

quoted,  but  merely  in  a  historical  respect,  as  indica 

tive  of  the  state  of  things  existing  at  the  time.     In 

both  the  Hebrew  is  pretty  closely  adhered  to,  more  so 

than  in  the  Septuagint. 

Ch.  xi.  8.  As  it  is  written,  *Edutxeu  a'jro^c  6  6sbz  m<£L>/jta 
za~wjzzu)z  d<pda%fjtoi)G  roit  p.rj  /5/s/T£rv,  zal  wra  TLUJJ.T} 
dxo'jsw.  Isa.  xxix.  10,  combined  with  Deut.  xxix.  4. 
God  gave  to  them  the  spirit  of  slumber,  eyes  that  they 
should  not  see,  and  ears  that  they  should  not  hear. 
IV.  14. 
The  apostle  seems  here  to  have  combined  two  passages,  as 


432  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

at  ch.  ix.  33.  The  spirit  of  slumber  is  spoken  of  in  Isa.  xxix. 
10,  as  judicially  inflicted  on  the  people;  and  an  explanation 
is  given  of  what  is  meant  by  this  in  words  derived  from  Deut. 
xxix.  4.  What  might  be  expected  in  such  a  case,  was  that 
the  general  sense  should  be  expressed,  rather  than  a  very 
exact  translation;  and  so  in  reality  it  is. 

Ch.  xi.  9,  10.  David  saith,  FevzdiJT(o  •/}  r/>a/T££a  WJTCOV  set; 
,  xal  £i$  d'/jpav,  xo.c  et£  axdvoaAov,  xal  eiz  di^Tano- 
brdt^'  crxoTCGO'/jTwcray  ol  6<pdaXfJLol  aurcov  TOU  prj 

|9A&re*v,  xal  TOU  VMTOU  aijTajv  did  Travroc  aufxafJL(jfOV.  Ps. 

Ixix.  22,  23.     Let  their  table  become  a  snare,  and  a 

net,  and  a  stumbling-block,  and  a  recompense  to  them ; 

let  their  eyes  be  darkened  that  they  may  not  see,  and 

bow  down  their  back  alway.  III.  10. 
The  Septuagint  is  here  followed  by  some  very  slight  varia 
tions;  chiefly  the  leaving  out  of  lv(b~tov  abra)y  before  erV 
xa'fioa,  and  inserting  e/c  0^/wxv,  which  does  not  exist  in  the 
Septuagint.  Substantially,  however,  the  apostle  follows  the 
Septuagint,  though  this  departs  considerably  from  the  Hebrew. 
The  precise  meaning  of  the  latter  is.  "Let  their  table  before 
them  become  a  snare,  and  for  peace  (lit.  peaces,  salams,  salu 
tations  of  peace)  for  a  gin  (i.e.  what  seemed  to  be  for  peace, 
let  it  become  for  a  gin.)  Let  their  eyes  become  dark,  so  that 
they  shall  not  see,  and  their  bones  continually  shake."  The 
rendering  of  the  Septuagint,  adopted  by  the  apostle,  however 
it  may  have  been  brought  about,  gives  the  general  sense, 
though  somewhat  paraphrastically :  the  snare  of  the  one,  and 
its  substitution  of  a  gin  for  indications  of  peace,  is  amplified 
into  "a  snare,  and  a  net,  and  a  stumbling-block,  and  a  re 
compense,"  that  is,  into  things  entirely  the  reverse,  but  such 
as  they  had  deserved  by  their  own  treachery.  The  other 
verse  varies  less  from  the  original;  it  merely  substitutes,  "bow 
down  their  back  alway,"  for  "let  their  bones  continually 
shake:" — only  a  different  mode  of  expressing  a  state  of  op 
pressive  and  enfeebling  bondage. 

Ch.  xi.  26,  27.  As  it  is  written,  ° Hszt  Ix  2uov  6  frjbfjLzvoz, 

dxoffr (.>£(/' si  dasfletac  dnb  'laxtbfl-  xal  o?jrr)  wjrolz  yxap' 

l/wu  diaOujxij)  orav  d<piXwfJt.at  rd^  d/JtapTca^  auTatv :  Isa. 


ROMANS.  433 

lix.  20,  21.  The  Redeemer  shall  come  out  of  Zion, 
He  shall  turn  away  ungodliness  from  Jacob ;  and  this 
is  the  covenant  from  Me  to  them,  when  I  have  taken 
away  their  sins.  IV.  15. 

This  citation  diifers  less  from  the  Septuagint  than  from  the 
Hebrew,  but  it  does  not  exactly  accord  with  either.  "  The 
Redeemer  shall  come  to  Zion,"  is  the  first  clause  in  the  origi 
nal,  or  "for  Zion,"  \ftfl  ;  the  Septuagint  has  evexsv  2ttov\ 
but  the  apostle  says  "out  of  Zion."  And  in  the  following 
clause,  what  is  in  the  original,  "  unto  them  that  turn  from 
transgression  in  Jacob,"  becomes  with  the  apostle,  who  here 
follows  the  Septuagint,  "  He  shall  turn  ungodliness  from  Ja 
cob."  Peculiar  as  these  changes  are,  they  proceed  upon  the 
same  principle  as  that  which  we  have  so  often  had  occasion 
to  notice  in  previous  examples;  without  in  reality  altering  the 
meaning,  the  apostle  throws  the  passage  into  a  form,  which 
virtually  explains  while  it  quotes;  as  our  Lord,  for  instance, 
slightly  altered  the  words  of  Malachi,  to  render  them  of  easier 
understanding  to  those  who  lived  when  they  were  passing  into 
fulfilment,  (See  at  Matt.  xi.  10.)  In  like  manner  here,  we 
have  such  an  alteration  put  upon  the  original  passage,  as  might 
render  the  only  fulfilment  it  could  henceforth  receive  more 
easy  of  apprehension.  Christ,  it  intimates,  will  again  come 
to  Zion,  as  He  has  already  done,  and  come  to  such  as  turn 
from  transgression  in  Jacob — namely,  for  the  purpose  of  bless 
ing  them  and  doing  them  good.  But  having  already  come 
and  finished  transgression,  Christ  has  put  an  end  to  the  old 
state  and  constitution  of  things,  so  that  the  Zion  that  then 
was  is  now  abolished:  Zion,  in  the  proper  sense,  is  above,  the 
residence  of  the  Divine  King;  and  when  He  comes  to  visit 
His  people  for  the  full  execution  of  His  covenant,  He  must 
come  out  of  Zion,  even  while,  in  a  sense,  He  may  be  said  to 
come  to  it.  And,  as  regards  the  Jewish  people,  now  rooted 
in  apostacy,  He  must  also,  in  connexion  with  that  coming, 
turn  them  from  ungodliness;  for  only  thus  could  the  ends  of 
the  covenant  in  their  behalf  be  accomplished,  and  the  Lord's 
coming  be  attended  by  the  benefits  pointed  at  by  the  pro 
phets.  It  is,  therefore,  the  same  prophecy  still — only,  by  the 
37 


434  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

verbal  alterations  he  puts  on  it,  the  apostle  adapts  it  to  the 
time  when  he  wrote,  and  renders  it  more  distinctly  indicative 
of  the  manner  in  which  it  was  to  find  what  still  remained  of 
its  accomplishment. 

The  last  clause,  "  when  I  have  taken  away  their  sins,"  is 
a  brief  and  compendious  expression  for  the  state  of  blessing 
and  acceptance,  in  which  the  people  are  contemplated  by  the 
prophet,  and  which  with  him  is  more  especially  connected  with 
the  indwelling  agency  of  the  Spirit.  The  Lord's  coming 
finally  to  redeem  and  bless,  will  take  place,  only  when  the 
barrier  raised  by  their  guilt  and  alienation  shall  have  been 
removed,  and  their  personal  state  shall  correspond  with  their 
privileges  and  prospects. 

Ch.  xii.  19.  For  it  is  written,  ' Ep.ol  £xdtxycric,  ifto  avTava- 

TcodcoGu),  AsfS!  K'jfxoz:  Deut.  xxxii.   35.     Vengeance 

is  Mine,  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord.     II.  18. 
The  passage  is  not  far  from  a  literal  rendering  of  the  He 
brew,  which  is,  "  Vengeance  is  Mine,  and  recompense."     The 
tefst  Kupioz  is  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  indicating  more 
expressly,  that  it  is  the  Lord  Himself  who  there  speaks. 
Ch.  xii.  20.  Contains  a  reiteration,  and  in  the  words  of  the 

Septuagint,  of  the  exhortations  originally  given  in  Prov. 

xxv.  21,  22.     But  they  are  not  formally  cited. 
Ch.  xiii.  9.  Contains  citations  of  the  commandments  of  the 

second  table  of  the  law,  where  there  was  no  room  for 

variation. 
Ch.  xiv.  11.  For  it  is  written,   Za>  £fto,  ll^i  Kuptoz,  ort 

ipol  xdftfiee  TZU.V  fbvu,  xat  IzofwAofyjasTai  rracra  ^Coaoo. 

TUJ  0sa>:  Isa.  xlv.  23.     As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  to 

Me  shall  every  knee  bow,  and  every  tongue  confess  to 

God.     II.  19. 

The  original  passage  is  abbreviated;  but  it  is  so  near  to 
the  Hebrew,  that  the  deviations  make  no  difference  in  the 
sense.  Instead  of  "I  live,  saith  the  Lord,"  the  prophet  has, 
"I  have  sworn  by  Myself,  the  word  is  gone  out  of  My  mouth 
in  righteousness,  and  shall  not  return" — a  fuller  declaration, 
but  not  different  in  sense.  '* Every  tongue  shall  confess"  is 
also  substantially  the  same  with  "  every  tongue  shall  swear," 


ROMANS.  435 

•which  is  the  expression  in  the  prophet.  For  in  the  Old  Testa 
ment  usage  swearing  to,  or  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  is  simply 
to  own  and  confess  Him  as  the  one  living  God. 

Ch.  xv.  3.  As  it  is  written,  01  dvsidtfffjioi  T&V  6vs.tdt^6vTcov 
<TS  t/Te/TStfov  IT?  1/j.s:  Ps.  Ixix.  9.     The  reproaches  of 
them  that  reproached  thee  fell  upon  Me.     I.  42. 
From  the  Septuagint,  but  exactly  rendering  the  Hebrew. 
Ch.  xv.  9-  As  it  is  written,  Jed  TOUTO  IsoftoAoyTJao/ucu  aoi  Iv 
£#v£0w,  xat  rw  depart  ffoi>  (f'aAat:  Ps.  xviii.  49.     For 
this  cause  will  I  confess  (or,  give  thanks)  to  Thee  among 
the  Gentiles,  and  sing  praise  to  Thy  name,     I.  43. 
Again  from  the  Septuagint,  and  a  literal  translation  of  the 
Hebrew. 

Ch.  xv.  10.  Again  he  saith,  EwppdvdyrG)  edvy,  fj.srd  TOU  Aaou 
al>Toi>:  Deut.  xxxii.  43.  Exult,  ye  Gentiles,  with  His 
people.  1.44. 

Here  the  Septuagint  is  quite  different;  it  has  su(p.  oupavot 
dim  al>Tw.  The  apostle  follows  the  Hebrew,  only  inserting 
the  preposition  between  Gentiles  and  people,  for  the  sake  of 
distinctness.  "Exult  ye  Gentiles,  His  people,"  is  the  precise 
rendering  of  the  original;  addressing  the  Gentiles  as  now 
among  God's  people,  having  one  place  and  character  with 
them. 

Ch.  xv.  11.  And  again  he  saith,  Aws'ire  xdvra  rd  Idvy  rov 
Kupiov,  xac  ixawzGdrwaav  aurbv  Trai/rec  ol  Aaol:  Psal. 
cxvii.  1.  Praise  the  Lord  all  ye  nations,  and  laud 
Him  all  ye  peoples.  I.  45. 

From  the  Septuagint,  which  literally  renders  the  Hebrew. 
Ch.  xv.  12.  And  again  Esaias  saith,  " Eorat  'q  pi^a  roO  Y£<T- 
aol,  xal  b  dw<7Td/j.zvoz  dp^zw  s^vwv,  ITT  abrw  HOvf]  i)- 
KIO~JGW\  Isa.  xi.  10.  There  shall  be  a  root  of  Jesse, 
and  He  that  ariseth  to  govern  the  Gentiles,  in  Him 
shall  the  Gentiles  trust.  III.  11. 

Follows  the  Septuagint.  The  Hebrew  is,  "In  that  day 
there  shall  be  a  root  of  Jesse,  that  shall  stand  as  a  banner  of 
the  Gentiles;  to  it  (or  him)  shall  the  Gentiles  seek."  The 
Greek  is  a  free  translation,  but  gives  the  sense  in  a  simpler 
form.  To  be  a  banner  to  the  Gentiles,  is,  in  plain  language, 
to  take  the  leadership  or  government  of  them;  and  to  seek  to 


436  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

Him,  in  such  a  connexion,  must  be  all  one  with  repairing  to 
Him  in  confidence  and  hope. 

Ch.  xv.  21.  As  it  is  written,  01$  obx  dwpfl'£ty  rczpt  ay-rov, 

Q(povT(u,  xat  ol  oux  dzr^xbaaw,  awrjaouaw.  Isa.  lii.  10. 

To  whom  He  was  not  announced,  they  shall  see,  and 

they  that  had  not  heard,  shall  understand.     III.  12. 

Again  following   the    Septuagint,   which   differs   from   the 

original  only  in  some  points  that  merely  affect  the  form.     It 

has  "what  was  not  announced  or  told  them,"  and,  at  the  close, 

"they  shall  consider,"  implying,  doubtless,  that  they  should 

so  do  it,  as  to  understand. 

I.  CORINTHIANS. 

Ch.  i.  19.  For  it  is  written,  *A~oho  rr^  ao<piav  TCOU  ffcxpcov, 
xat  Trp  a'jvsfftv  raw  (TUVSTCOV  ddzr^aco:  Isa.  xxix.  14. 
I  will  destroy  the  wisdom  of  the  wise,  and  the  under 
standing  of  the  prudent  I  will  set  aside.     II.  20. 
The  citation  agrees  with  the  Septuagint,  except  in  the  last 
word,  which  is  xpv<pw  in  the  Septuagint,  I  will  hide.     The 
translation,  however,  though  not  the  most  literal  that  could 
be  made,  undoubtedly  gives  the  plain  meaning  of  the  original. 
The  chief  difference  is,  that  the  thing  is  spoken  of  in  the 
original  merely  as  done,  while  here  God  is  directly  represented 
as  doing  it;  this  was  certainly  what  the  prophet  also  meant. 
To  make  men's  understanding  to  become  hidden,  and  to  set 
it  aside,  are  obviously  but  different  modes  of  expressing  the 
same  thing. 

Ch.  i.  31.  An  abbreviated  form  of  the  sentiment  contained 

in  Jer.  ix.  24,  and  not  strictly  a  quotation. 
Ch.  ii.  9.  As  it  is  written,  c'//  oipdaX^b^  o'jx  e?osv,  xat  ou$ 
oux  yjxo'jffsv,  xat  Ixe  xapolav  dvdfH&nou  obx  duefy,  oaa 
'/jTOtfjiaaev   6   6eb^  TO'C^  ayajcwoiv  aurov:   Isa.  Ixiv.   4. 
Things  which  eye  saw  not,  and  ear  heard  not,  and  upon 
the  heart  of  man  came  not  up,  the  things  which  God 
has  prepared  for  them  that  love  Him.     IV.  16. 
This  citation  agrees  neither  with  the  Hebrew  nor  with  the 
Greek  of  any  particular  passage  of  the  Old  Testament.     It 
comes  nearest,  however,  to  Isa.  Ixiv.  4,  where  the  exact  ren 
dering  of  the  original  is,  "And  from  the  beginning  of  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS.  437 

world  they  heard  not,  they  perceived  not  by  the  ear,  the  eye 
saw  not,  0  God,  beside  Thee  (or,  a  God  beside  Thee,)  who 
will  do  for  him  that  trusteth  on  Him."  It  is  an  obscure  pas 
sage,  and  is  rather  paraphrased  than  translated  by  the  apostle- 
The  "neither  hearing  nor  perceiving  by  the  ear,"  is  a  kind 
of  reiteration  for  the  purpose  of  strongly  asserting,  that  the 
matters  referred  to  lay  entirely  remote  from  any  cognizance 
of  men's  faculties;  but  the  apostle,  instead  of  giving  this  du 
plicate  reference  to  ear  knowledge,  carries  it  into  the  region 
of  the  heart,  and  uses  words  substantially  taken  from  the 
cognate  passage  of  ch.  Ixv.  17,  "it  came  not  up  upon  the 
heart."  The  Septuagint  has  in  the  latter  place,  ob  /JLTJ  IxeWT] 
ab-rwv  Ini  rrp  xapdiav,  so  similar  to  the  phrase  here  employed 
by  the  apostle,  that  one  can  scarcely  doubt  he  had  it  in  view. 
The  citation,  therefore,  proceeds  on  the  principle  of  bringing 
distinctly  out,  by  a  sort  of  paraphrastic  interpretation,  the 
import  of  the  passage,  and,  while  doing  so,  availing  himself 
in  part  of  language  furnished  by  another  passage  in  Isaiah's 
writings. 

Ch.  iii.  19.  For  it  is  written,  ^0  dpaffff6fiew>£  rob?  ffoipobc 
iu  T7J  Tiavoupfla  GL>JTWV:  Job  v.  13.  He  taketh  the 
wise  in  their  own  craftiness.  I.  46. 

The  original  is  closely  rendered,  but  not  in  the  words  of 
the  Septuagint. 

Ch.  iii.  20.  And  again,  K6totoz  ytvcbaxsi  rol»c  dealofeff/JLob^ 
TOJV  ffo<f(jjy,  ore  etffiv  /mrafoc:  Ps.  xciv.  11.  The  Lord 
knoweth  the  thoughts  of  the  wise,  that  they  are  vain. 
II.  22. 

It  differs  from  the  Septuagint,  and  also  from  the  Hebrew, 
only  by  putting  "the  wise,"  instead  of  "man."  But  as  man 
is  used  emphatically  by  the  Psalmist,  as  much  as  the  most 
skilful,  the  most  aspiring  of  men,  it  comes  to  the  same  thing 
as  the  apostle's  wise. 

Ch.  ix.  9.  For  in  the  law  of  Moses  it  is  written,  Ob  (ftjutcb- 
tfs.'C  pouv  aAocovTa:  Deut.  xxv.  4.  Thou  shalt  not 
muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth.  I.  47. 

A  literal  translation,  and  in  the  words  of  the  Septuagint. 
Ch.  x.  7.  As  it  is  written,  'ExdOursv  b  Xab^<pa't'^  zai 

37* 


438  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 


xal  dvlffryvau  Tiol^ziv.  Ex.  xxxii.  6.     The  people  sat 
down  to  eat  and  drink,  and  rose  up  to  play.     I.  48. 
Another  literal  translation,  and  in  the  words  of  the  Sep 
tuagint. 

Ch.  xiv.  21.  In  the  law  it  is  written,  "On  li>  hepo^cocrffo^ 
xal  iv  ystksatv  fa&p&v  JtaAfow  rw  haw  TO'JTOJ,  xal  obS1 
o'jTcoz  etGaxo'jaovrai  fj.00)  XsfZi  Kuptot;:  Isa.  xxviii.  11, 
12.  For  in  other  tongues,  and  in  lips  of  other  per 
sons  (strangers,)  will  I  speak  to  this  people;  and  not 
thus  [even]  will  they  listen  to  Me,  saith  the  Lord.  II. 
22. 

Here  the  Septuagint  is  quite  forsaken,  being  palpably  in 
correct.  The  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  is  given,  though  not  by 
a  close  translation:  what  is  there  "stammering  lips  and  ano 
ther  tongue,"  is  here  put  in  an  explicated  form  by  "other 
tongues  and  lips  of  strangers;"  i.e.  unaccustomed  modes  of 
speech  and  address.  The  same  thing  seems  to  be  meant  by 
both  forms  of  expression. 

Ch.  xv.  25,  27,  32,  45.  The  language  is  adopted  of  the  fol 
lowing  passages:  Ps.  ex.  1,  viii.  7;  Isa.  xxii.  13;  Gen. 
ii.  7. 

Ch.  xv.  54.  Then  shall  be  fulfilled  the  word  that  is  written, 
KaT£~6d7}  b  OdvaTO^  £^c  v?xo<;:  Isa.  xxv.  8.  Death  is 
swallowed  up  into  victory.  I.  49. 

A  literal  translation  ;  for  n>'J~>  means  to  perfection,  or  to 
glory,  as  well  as  to  perpetuity;  but  quite  different  from  the 
{Septuagint,  which  has  xareTtczv  b  OdvaTo;;  layjjaa^. 

II.  CORINTHIANS. 

Ch.  vi.  2.  For  He  saith,  Kotow  ozxrw  Inyxooad  aou,  xal  iv 
ijp&pq.  ocorypiaz  i^d^ffd  aoi  :  Isa.  xlix.  8.  In  an  ac 
ceptable  time  I  heard  thee,  and  in  a  day  of  salvation  I 
succoured  thee.  I.  50. 

A  close  translation,  taken  verbatim  from  the  Septuagint. 

Ch.  vi.  16.  A3  God  said,  ore  ivor/yau)  £v  avro^c  xal  ifmspt- 
noLtinffW)  xal  iffOfjuu  a'jTcou  0s.bz,  xal  abrol  siaouTat.  /JLOO 
/aoc:  Lev.  xxvi.  11,  12.  I  will  dwell  among  them, 


II.  CORINTHIANS.  439 

and  I  will  walk  among  them,  and  I  will  be  their  God, 
and  they  shall  be  My  people.     II.  23. 
The  meaning  entirely  accords  with  the  Hebrew;  only,  in 
stead  of  "I  will  set  My  tabernacle,"  it  has  "I  will  dwell;" 
and  it  uses  throughout  the  oblique  instead  of  the  direct  form 
of  address,  as  in  the  original  and  the  Septuagint. 

Ch.  vi.  17,  18.  dib  IseAdsTs  Ix  /ISCFOV  aurajv  xal  dtpopitrOyTS 
(saith  the  Lord,)  xal  dxaOdorov  fiy  aTiTeffde'  xdycb  etcr- 
oszo/jiat  utJiu.Z)  xal  laotmt  utftv  el^  Tcarepa,  xal  ufjistz 
i&zffOe  /Jtof  etz  utobz  xal  do^arspa^ — saith  the  Lord  Al 
mighty:  Isa.  lii.  11,  12;  Jer.  xxxi.  9,  33.  Wherefore 
come  out  from  among  them,  and  be  ye  separate — saith 
the  Lord — and  touch  not  the  unclean  thing;  and  I  will 
receive  you,  and  will  be  a  Father  unto  you,  and  you 
shall  be  to  Me  sons  and  daughters — saith  the  Lord  Al 
mighty.  IV.  17. 

The  first  of  these  two  verses  is  a  free  translation  of  Isa.  lii. 
11,  and  a  portion  of  verse  12,  which  contains  an  address  to  the 
Lord's  people,  as  redeemed,  to  go  forth  from  their  state  of 
bondage  and  depression,  and  to  separate  themselves  from  all 
the  defilements  amid  which  they  were  placed;  with  the  assu 
rance,  that  if  they  did  so,  the  Lord  Himself  would  go  with 
them  and  defend  them.  Undoubtedly,  the  substance  of  the 
prophet's  declaration  is  given  by  the  apostle.  The  remaining 
part  of  the  passage  seems  to  be  a  compressed  exhibition  of  the 
purport  of  several  verses — in  particular,  the  two  referred  to 
in  Jeremiah.  Jer.  iii.  19  might  also  be  included,  and  2  Sam. 
vii.  14  has  sometimes  been  thought  to  be  referred  to.  In  all 
these  passages  the  same  sentiment  is  undoubtedly  expressed, 
viz.,  the  acknowledgment  of  a  filial  relationship  on  the  part 
of  God  toward  those  who  should  forsake  their  sins,  and  give 
themselves  to  His  service.  But  as  to  the  formal  character  of 
both  these  verses,  it  may  be  questioned  whether  they  should 
be  regarded  strictly  as  a  quotation— or,  rather,  as  an  utter 
ance  of  the  Lord's  mind  by  the  apostle  himself;  though  couched 
in  the  style  of  ancient  prophecy,  and  with  reference  to  certain 
passages  contained  in  it.  So  that  we  might  say,  substantially, 
the  Lord  spake  thus  in  former  times ;  formally,  and  explicitly ', 
He  speaks  thus  now.  . 


440  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

Ch.  viii.  15.  As  it  is  written,  '0  TO  xoftj  obx  ZTTAzovavzv,  xat 
b  TO  oMyov  obx  fjAaTToyrjffsy :  Exod.  xvi.  18.  He  that 
[got]  the  much  had  no  surplus,  and  he  that  [got]  the 
little  had  no  lack.  I.  51. 

A  close  translation,  and  very  nearly  the  same  as  the  Sep 
tuagint. 

Ch.  ix.  9.  As  it  is  written,  ^EaxopxiGsv,  eocoxsv  ro?c  izewjatv, 
'/}  oixacoff'jyq  abTob  p.ivs.1  et^  TOV  atcova:  Ps.  cxii.  9.  He 
dispersed,  He  gave  to  the  poor,  His  righteousness  en- 
dureth  for  ever.  I.  52. 

The  same  precisely  as  in  the  last  example. 

GALATIANS. 

Ch.  iii.  8.  The  Scripture  preached  before  the  Gospel  to  Abra 
ham  :  c/ OTC  ivs.oXoyr]67jGovTac  iv  Gol  TidvTa  TO.  HOvy :  Gen. 
xii.  3.     In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.     I.  53. 
The  original,  in  Gen.  xii.  3,  h&s  families  instead  of  nations; 
the  Septuagint  <pulal;  but  this  is  all  one  with  nations;  and 
the  word  for  the  latter  is  frequently  used  in  the  repetition  of 
the  promise:   Gen.  xviii.  18,  xxii.  18. 

Ch.  iii.  10.  For  it  is  written,  ore  ImxaTdparoz  xaz  oc  obx 

ubfJLOi),  Tob  TIO^GU.I  ai)rd:  Deut.  xxvii.  20.      Cursed  is 
every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  that  are 
written  in  the  book  of  the  law,  to  do  them.     II.  24. 
The  citation  differs  only  in  a  few  unimportant  particulars 
from  the  Septuagint,  and  from  the  Hebrew  only  in  being  a 
little  more  full  and  explicit.     The  latter  has,   "Whosoever 
does  not  confirm,"  or  ratify,  "  the  words  of  this  law  to  do  them." 
Evidently  the  kind  of  ratification  meant  is  that  of  a  steady  ad 
herence  to  them. 

Ch.  iii.  11,  12.  See  at  Rom.  i.  17,  x.  5. 
Ch.  iii.  13.  For  it  is  written, ' EirexaTd/Mxroz  TCUL^  b  xpefjidftevoc 
l~c  £y/ow:  Deut.  xxi.  23.     Cursed  is  every  one  that 
hangeth  on  a  tree.     II.  25. 

The  Hebrew  has  merely  hanged  in  the  verse  actually  quoted, 
but  the  preceding  verse  uses  the  fuller  expression,  hanged  on 


EPHESIANS.  441 

a  tree;  so  that  there  is  no  real  difference  between  the  citation 
arid  the  original.  The  apostle,  however,  abbreviates  the  other 
part  of  the  verse;  he  says  simply,  "cursed,"  while  the  origi 
nal  has  "  cursed  of  God." 

Ch.  iii.  16.  He  says  not  to  seeds,  as  of  many,  but  as  of  one, 
Kal  TW  an$.pnari  ffou  :  Gen.  xxii.  18.  And  to  thy  seed 
(which  is  Christ.) 

The  passage  was  already  cited  at  Acts  iii.  25.  But  here  it 
is  coupled  with  a  peculiar  interpretation,  for  which  see  No. 
XV. 

Ch.  iv.  27.  For  it  is  written,  EbypdvfhjTt  ariupa  rj  ou  TCATOO- 
<ra,  p7fiov  xo.1  fioTjGov  YJ  oux  woluouffa,  ort  TCOAACL  iu.  rexva 
TY^  ipYjpoo  fj.ij.Rov  r)  TY^  £%ou<7Yj<;  TW  dvooa:  Isa.  liv.  1. 
Rejoice,  thou  barren  that  bearest  not;  break  forth  and 
cry  aloud,  thou  that  didst  not  travail  ;  for  more  are 
the  children  of  the  desolate  than  of  her  that  hath  a 
husband.  I.  54. 

The  Septuagint  is  followed  throughout;  but  it  gives  the  ori 
ginal  with  fidelity. 

Ch.  iv.  30.  What  saith  the  Scripture?  v  ExfiaXs  rrp  nae- 
diaxrjV  xal  rov  ulbv  a.OT'7^'  ou  yap  p.7]  xXypovo/jajff&e  6  Otbz 
TYjZ  natScffxrjz  JJ.ZTO.  TOU  o!ou  TY^  IteuQspaz:  Gen.  xxi. 
10.  Cast  out  the  bond-  woman  and  her  son;  for  the 
son  of  the  bond-woman  shall  not  be  heir  with  the  son 
of  the  free-woman.  I.  55. 

This  is  also  a  literal  translation  ;  only,  it  generalizes  the 
closing  words,  by  putting  "with  the  son  of  the  free-  woman," 
instead  of  with  "my  son,  with  Isaac."  Naturally;  for  the 
words  were  originally  Sarah's;  but  as  the  Lord  sanctioned  the 
principle  announced  in  them,  the  apostle  fitly  quotes  them  as 
spoken  by  the  Lord  of  Sarah's  offspring. 

EPHESIANS. 


Ch.  iv.  8.  Wherefore  He  saith,  '/ 

GZV  alyjmlcjuaiav,  eocuxsv  do/j.ara  roTc  dvdfHtmoef:  Ps. 
Ixviii.  18.  Having  ascended  up  on  high,  He  led  cap 
tivity  captive,  He  gave  gifts  to  men.  II.  26. 


442  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

The  rendering  here  adopted,  which  in  the  latter  part  only 
differs  from  the  Septuagint,  is  a  faithful  representation  of  the 
original,  so  far  as  the  substantial  import  is  concerned.  The 
only  deviation  from  the  literal  meaning  is  in  using  the  oblique, 
for  the  direct  form  of  statement,  and  substituting  gave,  for  re 
ceived,  in  respect  to  the  gifts  of  grace.  The  two  words  exhi 
bit  but  different  aspects  of  the  same  thing. 

Ch.  v.  14.  Wherefore  He  saith,  " Eyzcpai  b  mdsudcov  xai 
d.vdara  ix  TCOV  vexp&v,  xal  lxi<pauff£i  aoc  b  Xpiarbz: 
Awake  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead, 
and  Christ  shall  give  thee  light. 

The  passage  is  introduced  with  a  very  general  reference  to 
Divine  authority,  specifying  no  particular  Scripture  where 
the  saying  was  to  be  found ;  and  as  the  words  do  not  occur  in 
any  book  of  the  Old  Testament,  some  have  even  doubted  if 
there  is  a  reference  to  any  passage  in  it.  The  mention  of 
Christ  at  the  close  plainly  shows,  that  an  exact  or  literal 
quotation  was  not  meant;  but  rather  a  free  use  of  one  or  more 
passages  read  in  the  light  of  the  Gospel.  Such  passages  exist 
in  Isa.  Ix.  1,  2,  comp.  with  xxvi.  19. 

Ch.  v.  31.  See  at  Matt.  xix.  4,  5. 

I.  TIMOTHY. 
Ch.  v.  18.  See  at  1  Cor.  ix.  9. 

II.  TIMOTHY. 

Ch.  ii.  19.  And,  * Eyvco  Kuptoz  robe  ovrdz  altToZ:  Numb, 
xvi.  5.  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  His.  II.  27. 

The  words  of  the  Septuagint  are  taken,  except  that  Kupfoc 
is  put  for  6ib^.  In  the  original  it  is  rather,  the  Lord  will 
make  known  who  are  His — not  only  knows  them,  but  will 
make  His  knowledge  to  appear.  This  is  all  the  difference ; 
the  one  indicating  simply  the  fact,  the  other  the  visible  mani 
festation,  of  the  Divine  knowledge. 


HEBREWS.  443 


HEBREWS. 

Ch.  i.  5.  (on  first  quotation,  see  at  Acts  xiii.  32,  33,  and 
No.  XII.  of  the  Second  Part.)  And  again,  '  Efw  £00- 
IJ.O.L  ohroj  e«c  Trarepa,  xac  abrbz  zarac  [JLOC  etc  oibv  :  2  Sam. 
vii.  14.  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  He  shall  be 
to  Me  a  Son.  I.  56. 

In  the  words  of  the  Septuagint,  which  correctly  render  the 
Hebrew. 

Ch.  i.  6.  And  when  again  He  brings  His  first-begotten  into 
the  world,  He  saith,  Kal  xpoGxuvrjGdTWGav  CVJTW  xdvrsz 
dffzAo:  6zo~j:  Ps.  xcvii.  7.  And  let  all  the  angels  of 
God  worship  Him.  III.  13. 

Coincides  with  the  Septuagint,  except  in  using  the  oblique 
instead  of  the  direct  form  of  speech.  The  original  has  Eloliim 
instead  of  angels;  and  there  is  the  same  difference  at  ch.  ii. 
7,  where  see  what  is  said  in  explanation. 

Ch.  i.  7.  And  as  to  the  angels,  He  saith,  ^0  KOICOU  rol»c  df- 
z  adroit  ;ry£U//ara,  xal  TOL>Z  fetroupyobz  auToit  xupbz 
Ps.  civ.  4.     Who  maketh  His  angels  (messen 
gers)  win,ds,  and  flame  of  fire  His  ministers.     I.  57. 
The  Hebrew  is  exactly  rendered,  and  in  the  words  of  the 
Septuagint,  excepting  in  the  last  expression,  which  is  there 


Ch.  i.  8,  9.  And  to  the  Son,  C0  ^ovoc  0o>j,  6  0£oc,  e«c  rov 
aiaiva  TOI>  atatvoz,  x.r.L:  Ps.  xlv.  6,  7.  Thy  throne, 
0  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever,  etc.  I.  58. 

Throughout  from  the  Septuagint,  with  no  variations  worth 
naming,  and  giving  a  close  translation  of  the  Hebrew. 

Ch.  i.  10  —  12.  And,  Zv  xdr  dto%dz,  Kupis,  rrfv  rfu  lOs/isti- 
coGaz,  x.T.L  :  Ps.  cii.  25,  26.  Thou,  Lord,  in  the  be 
ginning  didst  lay  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  etc.  I. 
59. 

Precisely  as  in  the  last  example. 

Ch.  i.  13.  See  at  Matt.  xxii.  44. 

Ch.  ii.  6  —  8.  But  one  testified  in  a  certain  place,  saying, 
ore  fttfjtvfaxfl  ayroD  j  x.r.h.  :  Ps.  viii. 


444  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

4-6.  What  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him?  etc. 
III.  14. 

The  citation  is  made  entirely  from  the  Septuagint,  and  dif 
fers  from  the  Hebrew  only  in  one  clause:  What  is  here  "/y/ctr- 
TOHraz  O}JTOV  fipayj  re  Trap  d-ff£louz,  Thou  hast  made  Him  some 
what  less  than  the  angels,  is  in  the  Hebrew  DT^**1?  D>1P  ^"Jipnfi 
Thou  hast  made  him  want  little  of  Elohim  (God.)  There 
is,  however,  an  ambiguity  in  the  Greek;  for  the  fipo-yu  TI 
may  refer  either  to  space  or  to  time — lessened  him  either 
for  a  short  period,  or  by  a  little  degree,  though  the  latter  is 
the  more  natural.  The  Hebrew  is  more  definite,  and  indi 
cates  little  in  respect  to  degree  or  space.  The  application 
made  of  the  passage  consists  with  the  one  aspect  as  well  as 
the  other;  as  will  be  shown  in  the  remarks  at  No.  XVIII.  of 
Second  Section.  And  in  regard  to  the  Elohim,  it  is  plain, 
that  when  man  is  spoken  of  as  wanting  but  a  little  of  this,  that 
is,  of  Deity,  the  term  cannot  be  taken  in  its  strictest  sense; 
it  cannot  mean  the  Supreme  Jehovah,  in  His  personal  pro 
perties  and  perfections;  for  the  highest  of  creatures  stand  at 
an  infinite  distance  from  Him.  It  must  be  understood,  there 
fore,  in  the  looser  sense,  of  something  Divine-like  in  condition 
and  dignity.  It  is  so  used  in  Ps.  Ixxxii.  6;  Ex.  xxii.  9,  comp. 
with  John  x.  34.  In  the  same  sense  it  must  also  be  under 
stood  in  Ps.  xcvii.  7,  cited  in  ver.  6  of  the  preceding  chapter, 
where  the  Elohim  are  called  to  do  worship  to  one  higher  than 
themselves.  Divine-like  honour  and  dignity,  therefore,  are 
all  that,  in  such  cases,  can  be  fairly  understood  by  the  term. 
And  as  the  angels  stand  highest  in  this  respect  among  created 
intelligences  known  to  men,  they  are  not  unnaturally  regard 
ed  as  the  beings  that  most  fully  answer  to  the  description. 
Substantially,  therefore,  the  Greek  version  here  gives  the 
sense  of  the  original;  and  some  of  the  best  commentators  still 
concur  in  it  as  the  most  appropriate  rendering  that  can  be 
given.  "The  angels,"  says  Delitzsch  on  the  passage,  "are 
called  Elohim,  as  pure  spiritual  natures  that  have  been  pro 
duced  from  God,  and  are  the  purest  reflections  of  the  Divine 
essence." 

Ch.  ii.  12.  Saying,  'A-aft-sho  TO  dvo/jtd  ffo>j  rote 


HEBREWS.  445 


/J.OL>,  Iv  /Jisffoj  ixxtyfflac  ujuarfffo)  <T£  :  Psal.  xxii.  22.  I 
will  declare  Thy  name  to  My  brethren,  in  the  midst 
of  the  Church  (or  congregation)  will  I  sing  praise  to 
Thee.  I.  60. 

The  Septuagint  is  followed,  except  in  the  first  word,  for 
which  it  has  ogq-ffffo/jat  ;  and  the  Hebrew  is  strictly  adhered 
to. 

Ch.  ii.  18.  And  again,  '  Efa)  effo^a:  7i$.~ocdco:;  in  O:JTW,  I 
will  put  My  trust  in  Him.  And  again,  'Idol*  if  at  xal 
ra  Ttcudla  d  JJLOL  edatxsv  6  0s6c,  Behold  I  and.  the  chil 
dren  which  God  hath  given  Me:  Isa.  viii.  17,  18.  I. 
61. 

The  Septuagint  is  literally  followed  in  both  parts  of  the  ci 
tation;  and  without  any  material  difference  it  exhibits  the 
meaning  of  the  original. 

Ch.  iii.  7  —  11.  As  the  Holy  Ghost  saith,  Zypspov,  iav  TY^ 

<pa)vrfi  aurou  dxouffaTs,  x.T.L  :  Ps.  xcv.  7.  sq.     To-day, 

if  ye  will  hear  His  voice,  etc.     I.  62. 

The  words  are  again  those  of  the  Septuagint,  but  the  divi 

sion  made  of  them  is  not  precisely  the  same  ;  for  here  we  have 

"saw  My  works  for  forty  years,"  while  in  the  Septuagint,  and 

also  in  the  original,  there  is  a  pause  after  "saw  My  works,"  and 

the  following  sentence  begins:  "Forty  years  was  I  grieved." 

The  sense  is  still  the  same,  and  by  coupling  the  forty  years 

with  the  seeing  of  God's  works  additional  emphasis  is  given 

to  the  guilt  of  the  people. 

Ch.  iv.  4.  For  He  spake  in  a  certain  place,  Kal 
6  0coc  ^  ~#  fy^t0?-  Tfj  ^?vofjLy  d/TO  xdv-cov 
al)Torj\  Gen.  ii.  3.     And  God  rested  in  the  seventh  day 
from  all  His  works.     I.  63. 

The  passage  is  somewhat  abbreviated,  but  it  is  exactly  ren 
dered,  and  in  the  words  of  the  Septuagint. 

Ch.  v.  6.  As  He  saith  in  another  place  :  2b  tspsvz  e?c  rov 
alaJva  xaxa  rr^  rdziv  MsAy^credsx:  Psal.  ex.  4.  Thou 
art  a  Priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchisedek. 
I.  64. 

The  Hebrew  again  rendered  in  the  words  of  the  Septuagint. 
Ch.  vi.  14.  God  sware  by  Himself,  saying,  El 
38 


446  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 


<7£,  xai  TttyOuvcou  ntydww  <T£:  Gen.  xxii.  17. 
Surely  blessing  I  will  bless  thee,  and  multiplying  I  will 
multiply  thee.  I.  65. 

There  is  no  deviation  from  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint, 
except  in  putting  az  at  the  close  instead  of  07:£to/j.a  cru'j.  It 
makes  no  difference  as  to  the  sense. 

Ch.  viii.  5.  As  Moses  was  divinely  instructed,  f'  Opa  yap^ 
(pya'iv,  xocijffstz  Tzdvra  7.0.10.  rbv  TUTTOV  rov  dei^dsura  aoi 
lv  raj  opei  :  Ex.  xxv.  40.  For  see,  says  He,  thou  shalt 
make  all  according  to  the  pattern  that  was  shown  thee 
in  the  mount.  I.  66. 

The  words  are  again  to  a  nearness  those  of  the  Septuagint, 
the  only  difference  being  the  use  of  the  aorist  participle  in 
stead  of  the  perfect  osoe^/jJ^o^.  The  original  is  correctly 
exhibited. 

Ch.  viii.  8  —  12.  For  finding  fault  He  &aith  to  them,  'Joob 
•^fjLepat  Ipyjovrai,  hefsc  Kupco^,  xo.l  owczAeaat  l~t  rw 
otxov  y  Iffpayji,  x.r.L:  Jer.  xxxi.  31  —  34.  Behold  the 
days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  and  I  will  establish  with 
the  house  of  Israel,  etc.  I.  67. 

There  is  no  difference  worth  naming  between  this  citation 
and  the  corresponding  passage  in  the  Septuagint;  it  is  sub 
stantially  a  quotation  from  the  Septuagint  —  only  in  one  or 
two  instances  it  substitutes  a  phrase  of  like  import  for  ano 
ther  —  such  as  ffuvTsAsffaj  ITTI  rov  olxov  for  otaOqcro/jLac  TW  oixqj, 
and  (jcaOrjxrjv  Ir^oir^ao.  for  dcsde/rqv.  Throughout  also  the  mean 
ing  of  the  Hebrew  is  closely  rendered  ;  nor  does  any  excep 
tion  need  to  be  made  for  the  clause  at  the  close  of  verse  9, 
where  the  writer  of  the  epistle,  following  the  Septuagint,  has 
xdfa)  tyjtstyffa  abrwu,  and  I  regarded  them  not.  In  the  origi 
nal  it  is  DD  rnSyip  rpjw,  wjiich  in  the  English  Version,  and  many 
others,  has  the  sense  put  on  it,  "though  I  was  married  to 
them."  The  same  expression  occurs  at  Jer.  iii.  14,  and  has 
received  the  same  rendering.  But  the  propriety  of  that  ren 
dering  is  justly  called  in  question,  arid  the  translation  of  the 
Septuagint  is  rather  to  be  maintained.  The  primary  meaning 
of  the  verb  is  to  possess,  or  have  dominion  over;  then  to  pos 
sess  a  wife,  to  marry;  but  finally,  according  to  Gesenius,  to 


HEBREWS.  447 

loathe,  to  reject,  in  which  sense  he  takes  it  in  the  two  passages 
referred  to.  "The  common  meaning,"  he  says,  "may  do  in 
ch.  xxxi.,  if  it  be  rendered,  "Although  I  was  their  Lord;"  but 
it  gives  a  harsh  sense ;  and  what  weighs  with  me  more,  the 
signification  of  loathing  is  not  foreign  to  the  primary  power  of 
the  verb.  For  there  are  also  other  verbs,  in  which  the  sense 
of  subduing,  being  high  over,  ruling,  is  applied  to  the  signifi 
cation  of  looking  down  upon,  despising,  contemning." 

Ch.  ix.  20.  Saying,  TOUTO  TO  al/m  TY^  otadyxyz  f)Z  ivsre&aro 
xpbz  u[M.z  o  6so^:  Ex.  xxiv.  6.  This  is  the  blood  of 
the  covenant  which  God  hath  enjoined  unto  you.  II. 
28. 

The  sense  of  the  original  is  substantially  given,  though  dif 
fering  slightly  in  form,  and  also  departing  somewhat  from  the 
Septuagint.  The  more  exact  rendering  is,  "Behold  the  blood 
of  the  covenant,  which  the  Lord  hath  made  with  you." 

Ch.  x.  5-7.  Wherefore  when  He  cometh  into  the  world  He 
saith,  Overlay  xac  7tpoff<popay  oux  'fjOefyaaz,  aa>p.a  dk  xa- 
Tt]QTtGUj  pot,  bXoxaoTtb[j.a.TO.  xal  Trepe  6./j>aprla<;  obx  '/judo- 
z'  TOTS  e?~ov,  'loob  r/xaj — iv  X£<f>cdlde  ftefttiou  ji- 
TTTat  xspe  iuoti — roD  Koa^ai,  6  6>soc,  TO  ds/cfj^d  000 : 
Ps.  xl.  6 — 8.     Sacrifice  and  offering  I  did  not  desire, 
but  a  body  hast  Thou  prepared  for  Me ;  burnt-offerings 
and  offerings  for  sin  Thou  hadst  no  pleasure  in.     Then 
I  said,  Lo  I  come — in  the  volume  of  the  book  it  is  writ 
ten  of  Me— to  do  Thy  will,  0  God.     III.  15. 
This  citation  follows  the  Septuagint  so  closely,  that  the  va 
riations  from  it  are  quite  inconsiderable.     Instead  of  ol>x.  yudo- 
xqaaz  it  has  oux  fjr/jffaz,  which  is  the  more  exact  rendering  of 
the  original;  but  the  idea  is  the  same;  and  it  is  substantially 
all  one,  whether  the  offerings  in  question  are  represented  as 
not  sought,  or  not  delighted  in,  on  the  part  of  God.     The  one 
implies  the  other.     There  is,  however,  a  very  peculiar  render 
ing  given  of  a  clause  in  v.  5.     In  the  Hebrew  it  is  '•?  JT"!-?  D!J.f£, 
ears  hast  Thou  dug  through  (laid  thoroughly  open)  for  Me; 
the  meaning  is,  Thou  hast  formed  in  me  a  willing  and  obedi 
ent  spirit,  so  that  I  preserve  an  open  and  listening  ear  to  all 
Thy  commands.     It  is  difficult  to  understand,  how  this  should 


448  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

have  come  to  be  put  into  the  form  given  it  by  the  Septuagint, 
"a  body  hast  Thou  prepared  for  Me."  But  the  sentiment 
conveyed  by  it  is  substantially  the  same ;  for  by  the  preparing 
of  a  body,  in  such  a  connexion,  is  evidently  meant,  a  body 
formed  and  qualified  for  the  service  of  God — ready  in  all  its 
powers  to  yield  the  obedience  required.  The  contrast  here  is, 
between  the  sacrifices  of  slain  victims,  and  the  free  will  sacri 
fice  of  a  living  body,  or  a  listening  and  obedient  spirit. 
Ch.  x.  16,  IT.  See  at  ch.  viii.  8—11. 

Ch.  x.  30.  For  we  know  Him  that  hath  said,  'E/wl  Ixolxyfftt;, 
e-faj  dvTaTrodaxraj,  Isfst  Kupioz.  And  again,  xptve?  Ki>- 
ftccx;  TOV  )jj.bv  O.I>TO~J  :  Deut.  xxxii.  35,  36.  Vengeance 
is  Mine,  I  will  recompense,  saith  the  Lord.  The  Lord 
will  judge  His  people.  II.  29. 

The  only  difference  is  in  the  form  of  the  first  declaration ; 
as  put  in  the  original  it  is,  Mine  is  vengeance  and  recompense. 
Here  the  latter  word  is  turned  into  an  independent  sentence, 
to  give  additional  emphasis  to  the  meaning. 

Ch.  x.  37,  38.  There  is  here  a  substantial  appropriation  of 
the  language  of  Hab.  ii.  3,  4;  but  there  is  no  express 
citation,  and  the  original  is  used  with  some  freedom. 
Ch.  xi.  21.  Kal  Tipoffsxwycrsv  Im  TO  dxpou  rrfi  pdftdou  ai)TO~j\ 
Gen.  xlvii.  31.  And  worshipped  upon  the  top  of  his 
staff.  I.  68. 

This  is  not  given  as  a  quotation,  but  it  is  actually  one, 
being  the  precise  words  of  the  Septuagint.  According  as  the 
words  in  the  original  are  pointed,  they  admit  of  a  different 
rendering;  cither  that  just  produced,  or  the  one  given  in  the 
English  version,  according  to  the  Mas.  punctuation,  "He 
bowed  himself  (or,  worshipped)  upon  the  bed's  head."  The 
other  is  the  more  probable  meaning. 

Ch.  xii.  5,  6.  And  ye  have  forgotten  the  exhortation,  which 
speaketh  unto  you  as  unto  children,  Yle  [JLOO,  py  dfoyco- 

p££  TKUOltaZ  I&Jpioi),  fJLY^Ts  Ixl'JOU  l>7l   WJTOU  iX£f"£Ofl£VOZ" 

ov  fdo  dfttTrtf  Kuptos  7r«;o£'Jcr,  iiaaTtifdi  3s  ;ravr#  uibv 
w  Ttapadfyerati  Prov.  iii.  11,  12.  My  son,  despise  not 
the  Lord's  chastening,  nor  faint  when  thou  art  rebuked 
of  Him;  for  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth,  and 
scourgeth  every  son  whom  He  receiveth.  III.  16. 


HEBREWS.  449 

The  Septuagint  is  followed  verbatim,  which  only  in  the  last 
clause  departs  from  the  Hebrew;  but  here  it  does  so  rather 
singularly.  The  Hebrew  is  n^T  j3-r\x  3X3^  and  (or,  as)  a  fa 
ther  the  son  he  delighteth  in.  The  Septuagint  apparently  read 
the  first  word  as  if  it  were  3X3:,  and  so  turned  it  into  a  verb, 
having  God  for  its  nominative,  and  making  it  mean,  "and 
chastise th  the  son  whom  He  receiveth,"  or  delighteth  in.  As 
this  introduced  no  change  into  the  sentiment  conveyed  in  the 
passage,  but  only  omitted  the  allusion  to  the  earthly  father, 
which,  however,  the  apostle  shortly  afterwards  takes  occasion 
to  bring  out  in  words  of  his  own  (ver.  9,)  he  simply  adopted 
the  rendering  of  the  Septuagint. 

Ch.  xii.  20,  21.  In  these  two  verses  the  general  import 
merely  is  given  of  passages  in  the  Old  Testament.  Ex. 
xix.  12,  13,  16;  Deut.  ix.  19. 

Ch.  xii.  26.  Now  hath  He  promised,  saying,  v ETC  a~a~,  Ifa) 
adffco  oi)  /JLOVOV  rrtv  ptv,  alAa  y.o.l  rbv  ohpavov.  Hag.  ii. 
6.  Yet  once,  I  will  shake  not  only  the  earth,  but  also 
the  heaven.  II.  30. 

The  citation  differs  from  the  Septuagint  and  from  the  He 
brew  only  in  form:  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  more  pro 
minently  the  heaven  as  included  in  the  shaking,  what  accord 
ing  to  the  original  is,  "the  heaven  and  the  earth,"  is  here 
made,  "not  only  the  earth,  but  the  heaven." 

Ch.  xiii.  5.  For  He  Himself  hath  said,  O'j  /ty  02  avco,  oud* 
o>j  prj  (7~  Ifxa-caAl-a) :  Josh.  i.  5.  I  will  not  leave  thee, 
nor  will  I  forsake  thee.  I.  69. 

Follows  the  Hebrew  closely,  but  differs  in  form  from  the 
Septuagint.     The  same  sentiment  occurs  in  Deut.  xxxi.  8. 
Ch.  xiii.  6.  So  that  we  may  boldly  say,  Kupeoc  ip.ol  ftoydbz, 
ml  oi>  (poprjQyaopar  ~l  Tioc^an  JJLOI  a\>>0p(.o~oz\  Ps.  cxviii. 
6.     The  Lord  is  my  helper,  and  I  shall  not  be  afraid; 
what  shall  man  do  to  me?     I.  70. 

The  Septuagint  is  cited,  but  it  gives  the  original  quite  cor 
rectly  ;  for,  "the  Lord  is  my  helper,"  is  substantially  one  with 
"the  Lord  is  for  me,"  which  is  the  literal  rendering  of  the 
Hebrew. 

38* 


450  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 


JAMES. 

Oh.  ii.  8,  23.  See  at  Matt.  xxii.  39,  and  Rom.  iv.  3. 
Ch.  iv.  5.  Do  ye  think  that  the  Scripture  saith  in  vain,  TT/>OC 
<pObvov  IntxodeZ  TO  Trvsy/^a  o  xarwxiazv  ev  iq/juv ;  the  spi 
rit  that  dwelt  in  us  lusts  to  envy? 

The  reference  seems  to  be  to  the  passages  which  condemn 
an  envious  or  covetous  spirit,  as  naturally  working  in  men's 
hearts — such  as  the  tenth  commandment  of  the  law,  Eccl.  iv. 
4,  etc.  But  it  is  only  a  reference  to  the  general  import  of 
such  passages,  not  an  explicit  quotation. 

Ch.  iv.  6.  Wherefore  He  saith,  ^0  6zbz  direpyy>dvot{  dvTcrdff- 
ffZTa:,  Tanzivdiz  os  dldtoaeu  %dptv :  Prov.  iii.  34.  God 
resisteth  the  proud,  but  giveth  grace  to  the  lowly.  III. 
17. 

The  Septuagint  has  precisely  these  words  in  the  passage  re 
ferred  to.  The  Hebrew  so  far  differs,  that  in  the  first  mem 
ber  it  expresses,  "  Surely  He  scorneth  the  scorners."  It  is 
undoubtedly  the  scorn  of  a  proud  and  elated  spirit  that  is 
meant;  so  that  the  meaning  is  virtually  the  same.  A  very 
similar  antithesis  also  is  found  in  Prov.  xxix.  23. 


I.  PETER. 

Ch.  i.  16.  Because  it  is  written,  * Aftoi  iasffde,  ore  ifo) 
Lev.  xi.  44.     Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy.     I.  71. 

An  abridged  quotation,  but  quite  literal. 

Ch.  i.  24,  25.  For,  KU.OO.  aaoq  %opTO£,  xal  7iu0a  ob^a  aJbrrfi 
w^  disOoz  ybpTou'  IfypdvOy  b  /o/>roc,  xai  TO  ai^Oo^  l££- 

7T£<T£V   TO  O£  [>%/40L   Koft'iOO  /Jl£V£l   £C£  TOV  atCOVO.'.    Isa.   xl. 

0,  7.  All  flesh  is  grass,  and  all  the  glory  of  it  as  the 
flower  of  grass;  the  grass  witheretb,  and  the  flower 
fadeth;  but  the  word  of  the  Lord  abideth  for  ever.  I. 
72. 

The  Septuagint  is  followed,  which  adheres  closely  to  the 
Hebrew. 

Ch.  ii.  6.  See  at  Rom.  ix.  33.  The-apostle  here  merely  adds 


REVELATION.  451 

a  few  epithets  from  Isa.  xxviii.  16,  which  were  omitted 
by  St.  Paul. 

Oh.  ii.  7.  See  at  Matt.  xxi.  42,  and  Acts  iv.  11. 

Ch.  ii.  9,  22,  24.  In  each  of  these  verses  there  is  a  silent 
appropriation  of  Old  Testament  passages — Ex.  xix.  6 ; 
Isa.  liii.  9,  5, — in  perfect  accordance  with  the  Hebrew, 
and  in  the  words  of  the  Septuagint.  But  there  is  no 
formal  citation. 

Ch.  iii.  10-12.  Another  silent  appropriation  of  an  Old  Tes 
tament  passage — Ps.  xxxiv.  12—16 — almost  entirely  in 
the  language  of  the  Septuagint,  and  quite  faithful  to 
the  original. 

Ch.  iii.  14,  15.  A  similar  adoption  of  the  language  of  Isaiah, 
in  ch.  viii.  12,  13. 

Ch.  iv.  8.  A  substantial,  though  not  quite  literal  appropria 
tion  of  the  words  of  Prov.  x.  12. 


II.  PETER. 

Ch.  ii.  22.  It  has  happened  unto  them  according  to  the  true 
proverb,  x>ja>»  imatptyaz  Ixl  TO  tdeov  Izepa/m,  xal  &c 
Aovaa/jidi/q  ec$  xuAifffia  ftoppopoo :  The  dog  is  turned  to 
his  own  vomit  again,  and  the  sow  that  was  washed  to 
her  wallowing  in  the  mire. 

This  is  not  properly  a  scriptural  quotation,  but  the  applica 
tion  merely  of  a  common  proverb  to  a  spiritual  case.  The 
first  part  of  it  occurs  substantially  in  Prov.  xxvi.  11,  yet  not 
precisely  as  presented  here. 

REVELATION. 

Throughout  the  book  of  Revelation  there  is  a  constant  ap 
propriation  of  the  language  of  Old  Testament  Scripture;  some 
times — as  at  ch.  ii.  27,  v.  10 — sentences  are  adopted  entire ;  but 
of  proper  and  formal  citation  there  is  no  example,  as,  indeed, 
the  nature  of  the  book  did  not  admit  of  it. 


452  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 


GENERAL  RESULT. 

It  thus  appears,  that  of  the  four  classes  of  citations  men 
tioned  at  the  outset,  there  are — not  reckoning  repeated  cita 
tions  of  the  same  passages  in  the  same  or  other  books — 72 
belonging  to  the  first,  80  to  the  second,  17  to  the  third,  and 
17  to  the  fourth.  In  other  words,  considerably  more  than 
the  half  of  the  whole,  in  which  the  passages  from  the  old 
Testament  are  closely  rendered — very  commonly  in  the  words 
of  the  Septuagint,  but  also  occasionally  by  an  independent 
translation.  In  30  more  the  difference  between  the  original 
and  the  citation  is  merely  of  a  formal  kind,  some  slight  alte 
ration  being  adopted  in  the  phraseology,  usually  for  the  pur 
pose  of  adapting  it  better  to  its  place  as  a  citation,  but  with 
out  making  any  assignable  difference  in  the  meaning  of  the  pas 
sage.  Indeed,  so  narrow  often  is  the  boundary  between  this 
class  of  quotations  and  the  first,  that  it  is  of  no  moment,  prac 
tically,  whether  they  should  be  assigned  to  the  first  class,  or 
should  form  one  by  themselves.  The  third  class  presents  17, 
in  which  the  Septuagint  is  followed,  in  preference  to  the  He 
brew;  but  here  again  the  variations  are  commonly  of  a  formal 
kind;  and  even  when  they  exhibit  a  substantial  difference,  it 
is  only  by  a  sort  of  paraphrastic  explanation  being  given  of  the 
original,  or  by  a  distinct  expression  being  imparted  to  a  par 
ticular  aspect  of  the  truth,  such  as  specifying  a  result  or  a 
cause,  which  the  original  did  nothing  more  than  indicate.  In 
none  of  the  cases  are  we  presented  with  a  different  sense,  but 
simply  with  a  modified  representation  of  the  same  sense.  And 
in  the  remaining  17,  in  which  neither  is  the  Hebrew  nor  the 
Septuagint  strictly  followed,  there  is  a  common  principle  per 
vading  them;  that,  namely,  of  rendering  something  peculiar 
or  obscure  in  the  original  more  clearly  intelligible  to  those  who 
were  immediately  in  the  eye  of  the  New  Testament  writer,  or 
to  readers  generally  in  gospel  times.  In  the  whole  of  this 
class  of  cases,  as  well  as  of  the  immediately  preceding  one, 
the  general  meaning  of  the  ancient  Scripture  is  still  preserved, 


GENERAL  RESULT.  453 

and  nothing  in  doctrine  or  precept  is  built  upon  the  superficial 
differences  existing  between  the  citation  and  the  original. 

It  is,  therefore,  a  groundless  and  unwarranted  application 
to  make  of  these  occasional  departures  from  the  exact  import 
of  the  original,  when  they  are  employed  as  an  argument 
against  the  plenary  inspiration  of  Scripture.  So,  for  example, 
Dr.  Davidson,  in  his  Hermeneutics,  (page  513,)  holds,  that 
the  freedom  with  which  the  New  Testament  writers  cite  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  a  conclusive  proof  against 
such  inspiration.  For,  he  argues,  "  the  terms  and  phrases  of 
the  Old  Testament,  if  literally  inspired,  were  the  best  that 
could  have  been  adopted.  Why,  then,  did  not  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  give,  as  nearly  as  possible,  these  best 
terms  and  phrases?  They  should  have  adhered  to  the  ipsis- 
sima  verba  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  (seeing  they  were  the  best,)  as 
closely  as  the  genius  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  languages  al 
lowed.  But,  instead  of  this,  they  have  widely  departed  from 
them."  We  are  afraid  this  argument,  if  valid,  would  go  much 
further  than  establish  a  conclusion  against  what  is  termed 
verbal  inspiration.  The  question  cannot  be  one  merely  of 
words;  for  if  not  the  main  import,  yet  the  precise  shade  of 
meaning,  is  necessarily  affected  by  the  deviations;  so  that, 
on  the  principle  in  question,  the  New  Testament  writers  are 
liable  to  the  charge  of  having  chosen  an  inferior  thing  to  what 
lay  actually  before  them;  they  altered,  to  some  extent,  the 
statements  of  Scripture,  and  altered  them  to  the  worse.  But 
the  argument  rests  upon  a  fallacy — the  fallacy  of  supposing, 
that  what  is  the  best  in  certain  circumstances,  what  may  have 
been  best  when  the  ancient  prophets  wrote,  must  also  be  the 
best  when  apostles  and  evangelists  brought  into  notice  the 
fulfilment  of  their  words.  By  that  time  circumstances  were 
materially  changed;  and  it  may  have  been  expedient,  it  may 
even  have  been  required  by  the  highest  spiritual  wisdom,  to 
adopt  some  slight  modification  of  the  original  passage,  or  to 
give  an  explanatory  rendering  of  its  terms,  so  as  to  adapt  it 
the  better  to  the  purpose  of  its  application.  Even  in  those 
cases,  in  which,  for  any  thing  we  can  see,  a  closer  translation 
would  have  served  equally  well  the  purpose  of  the  writer,  it 


454  •  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

may  have  been  worthy  of  the  inspiring  Spirit,  and  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  fullest  inspiration  of  the  original  Scrip 
tures,  that  the  sense  should  have  been  given  in  a  free  current 
translation;  for  the  principle  was  thereby  sanctioned  of  a  ra 
tional  freedom  in  the  handling  of  Scripture,  as  opposed  to  the 
rigid  formalism  and  superstitious  regard  to  the  letter,  which 
prevailed  among  the  Rabbinical  Jews.  The  Church  of  the 
New  Testament,  we  are  thereby  taught,  is  not  bound  by  the 
pedantic  trammels  which  Jewish  authorities  imposed,  and  which, 
by  spending  its  solicitude  upon  the  shell,  comparatively  neg 
lected  the  kernel.  The  stress  occasionally  laid  in  the  New 
Testament  upon  particular  words  in  passages  of  the  Old,  and 
even  on  the  number  and  tenses  of  words — as  at  Matt.  xxii.  32, 
45;  Gal.  iii.  16;  Heb.  i.  5,  v.  10 — sufficiently  proves  what  a 
value  attaches  to  the  very  form  of  the  Divine  communications, 
and  how  necessary  it  is  to  connect  the  element  of  inspiration 
with  the  written  record  as  it  stands.  It  shows  that  God's 
words  are  pure  words,  and  that,  if  fairly  interpreted,  they  can 
not  be  too  closely  pressed.  But  in  other  cases,  when  nothing 
depended  upon  a  rigid  adherence  to  the  letter,  the  practice  of 
the  sacred  writers,  not  scrupulously  to  stickle  about  this,  but 
to  give  prominence  simply  to  the  substance  of  the  revelation, 
is  fraught  also  with  an  important  lesson;  since  it  teaches  us, 
that  the  letter  is  valuable  only  for  the  truth  couched  in  it,  and 
that  the  one  is  no  further  to  be  prized  and  contended  for,  than 
may  be  required  for  the  exhibition  of  the  other. 

The  practice  in  this  respect  of  the  sacred  writers  is  followed 
every  day  still,  and  followed  by  persons  who  hold  the  strictest 
views  of  inspiration.  They  never  imagine,  while  they  quote 
passages  from  a  current  translation,  though  it  may  not  give 
the  meaning  to  the  nicest  shade,  or  themselves  slightly  modify 
the  form  of  words  to  suit  the  particular  application  made  of 
them,  that  they  are  thereby  compromising  the  plenary  inspi 
ration  of  Scripture.  They  do  not  the  less  hold  every  jot  and 
tittle  of  it  to  be  sacred,  that  they  at  times  find  it  unnecessary 
to  press  what  is  comparatively  but  a  jot  or  tittle.  Indeed,  the 
matter  in  this  aspect  of  it  has  been  quite  properly  put  by  the 
writer  just  quoted,  and  in  a  manner,  that  seems  to  accord  ill 


GENERAL  RESULT.  455 

with  what  fell  from  him  on  verbal  inspiration.  "  It  is  unrea 
sonable  to  expect,"  he  says,  athat  the  apostles  should  scrupu 
lously  abide  by  the  precise  words  of  the  passages  they  quote. 
By  a  slight  deviation  from  the  Greek,  they  sometimes  rendered 
the  sense  clearer  and  more  explicit;  at  other  times  they  para 
phrased,  rather  than  translated,  the  original  Hebrew.  In 
every  instance  we  suppose  them  to  have  been  directed  by  the 
superintending  Spirit,  who  infallibly  kept  them  from  error, 
and  guided  them  in  selecting  the  most  appropriate  terms,  where 
their  own  judgments  would  have  failed."  (P.  470.) 

There  za,  however,  a  point  connected  with  the  citations  from 
the  Old  Testament,  which  seems  somewhat  strange,  and  admits 
of  no  proper  explanation — although  it  can  scarcely  be  said  to 
touch  upon  the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  or  to  involve  any 
question  of  principle.  It  is  in  respect  to  the  apparent  capri- 
ciousness  of  the  treatment  given  to  the  Septuagint  translation. 
Sometimes  it  is  followed  with  great  regularity  for  a  series  of 
passages,  and  then,  it  is  suddenly  abandoned  at  places  where 
its  rendering  is  not  less,  or  even  more  exact.  Thus  at  Matt, 
xxvii.  9,  10,  a  rendering  is  preferred  markedly  differing  from 
the  Septuagint,  itself  too  one  of  the  most  peculiar,  while  in 
several  preceding  quotations  the  words  of  the  Septuagint  were 
almost  literally  adopted.  So  again,  at  John  xv.  25,  the  Sep 
tuagint  is  departed  from,  where  it  literally  renders  the  origi 
nal,  but  in  the  two  following  citations  it  is  implicitly  followed. 
There  are  similar  irregularities  elsewhere,  particularly  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  where,  usually,  the  Septuagint  ia 
closely  followed,  while  yet  at  certain  passages  a  somewhat 
different  rendering  is  preferred  (see  ch.  ix.  20,  x.  30,  xii.  26.) 
This  alternating  use  and  disuse  of  the  Septuagint  as  a  transla 
tion  of  Old  Testament  Scripture  finds  no  explanation  in  any 
existing  relations,  or  spiritual  principle,  with  which  we  are 
acquainted. 


456  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 


SECTION   SECOND. 

QUOTATIONS  FROM  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW,  CONSIDERED 
IN  RESPECT  TO  THE  MODE  OF  APPLICATION. 

IT  is  but  a  comparatively  small  number  of  the  passages, 
•which  have  been  already  produced  and  compared  with  the 
original  Scriptures,  that  require  to  be  brought  up  for  con 
sideration  here.  The  use  made  of  them  in  the  New  Testa 
ment  is,  for  the  most  part,  so  transparently  reasonable  and 
proper,  that  among  thoughtful  and  sober-minded  Christians 
there  can  be  but  one  opinion  regarding  it.  We  shall,  there 
fore,  as  formerly  intimated,  limit  our  inquiry  to  the  examples 
•which  have  chiefly  created  embarrassment,  and  require  ex 
planation. 

I. 

Matt.  i.  22,  23;  Isa.  vii.  14. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  the  application  of  no  testimony  of 
Old  Testament  Scripture  to  the  transactions  of  the  New,  has 
given  rise  to  more  variety  of  opinion,  or  is  more  frequently 
called  up  for  fresh  discussion,  than  the  one  which  meets  us 
at  the  very  threshold  of  the  Gospels, — in  Matt.  i.  22,  23,  where 
we  are  told,  that  the  things  concerning  the  miraculous  con 
ception  of  Christ  took  place,  that  the  prophecy  in  Isa.  vii.  14 
might  be  fulfilled,  which  said,  "Behold  the  virgin  shall  con 
ceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and  they  shall  call  His  name  Immanuel." 
By  a  large  body  of  interpreters  it  is  held,  that  in  this  appli 
cation  there  is  a  certain  accommodation  of  the  prophecy  to 
what  was  not  primarily,  if  at  all,  contemplated  in  it;  and  that 
the  child  to  be  born  and  called  Immanuel  was,  in  the  first 
instance  at  least,  to  be  a  child  produced  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature,  and  within  a  very  short  period  from  the  deliverance 
of  the  prophecy.  They  argue  this  on  the  ground,  that  the 
birth  of  the  child  was  to  form  the  sign  of  Judah's  speedy  de 
liverance  from  the  hostile  assaults  of  Syria  and  Israel;  inso 
much  that,  before  he  should  know  to  discern  the  evil  and  the 


MATT.  i.  23;  ISA.  vii.  14.  457 

good,  those  two  lands  should  be  forsaken  of  their  kings  (ver. 
16.)  They,  therefore,  conceive,  that  by  the  child-bearing 
virgin  must  primarily  be  meant  a  then  living  maid — a  maid 
presently  to  be  married,  and  to  have  offspring;  that  to  this 
offspring  a  symbolical  name  should  be  given,  as  a  pledge  of 
the  Divine  favour  and  protection,  and  that  the  pledge  should 
be  verified  within  two  or  three  years  by  the  removal  of  the 
kings  of  Syria  and  Israel.  So  that  the  Evangelist  Matthew 
must,  either  have  accommodated  a  prediction  to  Christian 
times,  which  did  not  originally  and  properly  point  to  them,  or 
the  prediction  of  itself  admitted  and  justified  such  an  applica 
tion  because  of  a  typical  relationship  between  the  nearer  and 
the  more  remote  birth — the  one  being  like  the  foreshadowing 
sign  of  a  much  greater  future.  Many  subordinate  differences 
exist  among  the  interpreters,  who  concur  in  the  more  funda 
mental  part  of  this  view;  they  only  differ  as  to  the  particular 
almah,  or  virgin,  and  child  that  may  be  meant,  and  the  way 
in  which  the  ultimate  is  to  be  connected  with  the  primary  ap 
plication.  But  as  such  shades  of  difference  do  not  affect  the 
principle  of  the  interpretation,  or  obviate  the  objections,  to 
which  in  any  form  it  appears  to  me  liable,  there  is  no  need  for 
going  into  details. 

I.  (1.)  To  begin  with  the  negative  aspect  of  the  matter,  or 
the  objections  that  present  themselves  to  this  mode  of  inter 
pretation,  we  remark,  first  of  all,  that  there  is  obviously  in  it 
the  want  of  a  proper  nexus  between  the  two  events,  such  as 
the  application  of  the  Evangelist  seems  to  indicate,  and  as 
the  nature  of  the  relation  itself  would  require.  We  take  for 
granted,  that  there  was  a  relation  of  some  kind;  for  the  mere 
accommodationists  are  not  worth  arguing  against.  The  Evan 
gelist,  then,  plainly  appears  to  have  found,  in  the  words  of 
the  prophet,  an  explicit  and  definite  announcement  of  Mes 
siah's  wonderful  birth  and  person,  as  being  in  Himself  a 
marvellous^ombination  of  the  Divine  and  human,  and  as  born 
into  this  world  the  singular  offspring  of  a  virgin.  However 
he  may  have  found  this  in  the  prophecy,  he  certainly  appears 
to  have  found  it;  and  can  the  right  to  do  so  be  justified  on 
39 


458  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

such  a  rejationship  between  the  immediate  and  the  ultimate 
as  the  view  under  consideration,  in  any  of  its  forms,  supposes? 
One  can  conceive  of  a  birth  among  the  chosen  people  so 
brought  about  and  so  circumstanced,  as  that  it  might  fitly 
enough  be  taken  for  a  prophetical  sign  or  prefiguration  of 
Christ's  birth.  The  birth  of  Isaac  was  pre-eminently  one  of 
that  description;  there  was  a  quite  special  and  supernatural 
element  in  the  one  as  well  as  in  the  other;  and  in  both  cases 
alike  connected  with  the  higher  interests  of  the  Divine  king 
dom.  Such,  too,  in  a  measure,  was  the  case  with  Solomon, 
the  immediate  successor  of  David  on  the  throne  of  the  king 
dom.  But  in  such  cases  there  was  a  peculiarity  connected 
with  the  parentage;  a  typical  relationship  already  existed 
there,  forming  the  ground  of  the  prospective  reference  of  the 
birth;  and  it  became  comparatively  easy  to  pass  from  the  im 
mediate  to  the  future,  and  to  see  the  one  imaged  in  the  other; 
especially  when  there  was  a  prophetic  word  uttered  over  the 
nearer  event,  which  naturally  carried  the  thoughts  onward  to 
the  remoter  and  greater  things  of  the  kingdom.  But  here,  on 
the  interpretation  in  question,  there  is  nothing  properly  special, 
either  in  the  parent  or  the  child;  it  might  have  been  (for 
aught  that  appears)  any  young  woman  in  Judea,  any  child 
born  of  such  a  woman,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature, 
whether  in  the  line  of  Messiah's  parentage  or  not.  One  can 
not  even  see  why,  on  the  supposition  in  question,  the  single 
specification  should  have  been  made,  of  the  mother  being  at 
the  time  an  unmarried  person — granting,  what  we  by  no  means 
admit,  that  the  almah  of  the  prophet  denotes  only  a  marriage 
able  maid,  though  not  necessarily  a  virgin ;  for  there  seems 
no  proper  call  for  the  mother  being  a  maid,  if  the  child  was 
to  come  by  ordinary  generation,  and  if  it  was  to  be  the  pledge 
of  Divine  protection  and  deliverance  only  by  the  period  of  its 
birth.  In  such  a  case,  it  seems  arbitrary  in  the  prophet  to 
lay  stress  on  the  point  of  her  maidenhood,  especially  when  no 
particular  maiden  was  indicated;  and  still  more  Arbitrary  in 
the  Evangelist  to  find  in  the  child  of  this  indefinite  mother, 
with  its  immediate  adjuncts,  a  distinct  and  circumstantial 
presage  of  Messiah's  birth. 


MATT.  i.  23;  ISA.  vii.  14.  459 

(2.)  Then,  the  name  assigned  to  this  child,  for  the  purpose 
of  indicating  its  nature  and  destiny,  taken  in  connexion  with 
the  prophet's  own  subsequent  references  to  it,  seems  incom 
patible  with  the  idea  of  its  being  a  common  child,  produced 
by  ordinary  generation.  That  a  maiden  or  virgin,  without 
further  specification,  should  be  announced  as  the  prospective 
mother  of  a  child,  that  was  to  bear,  as  a  fit  designation,  the 
name  Immanuel  (God  with- us,)  would  certainly  be  peculiar — 
we  may  even  say,  without  a  parallel — if  in  that  child  there 
was  nothing  supernatural  in  respect  to  its  generation  or  its 
birth.  The  very  imposing  of  such  a  name  seems  to  import, 
that  Divinity  was  somehow  to  be  peculiarly  manifested  in  the 
Being  produced.  Not  only  so,  but  in  ch.  viii.  8,  the  prophet 
addresses  Him  as  the  rightful  proprietor  of  the  land;  for, 
speaking  of  the  adversary,  he  says,  "The  stretching  out  of 
his  wings  shall  fill  the  breadth  of  Thy  land,  0  Immanuel." 
And  in  the  very  fact  of  that  proprietorship,  he  descries  the 
sure  ground  of  a  final  deliverance  from  all  oppression  and 
violence:  "Take  counsel,"  he  says  to  the  enemies,  "and  it 
shall  come  to  naught;  speak  the  word,  and  it  shall  not  stand, 
because  of  Immanuel"  (ch.  viii.  10.)  Thus  Immanuel  is 
plainly  regarded  by  Isaiah  as  the  God-man,  the  proper  Lord 
of  the  heritage,  supreme  Head  of  the  kingdom.  And  still 
again,  in  another  part  of  the  same  line  of  prophecy,  in  the 
glorious  announcement  with  which  it  closes  (ch.  ix.  6,)  the 
prophet  evidently  points  back  to  the  original  passage,  and  in 
vests  it  with  the  full  meaning  of  which  its  words  were  suscep 
tible: — in  the  one,  "a  virgin  conceives  and  bears  a  son;"  in 
the  other',  "unto  us  a  child  is  born,  a  son  is  given;"  "God- 
with-us"  is  the  name  by  which  the  first  is  to  be  called,  and 
of  this,  in  like  manner,  it  is  said,  "His  name  shall  be  called 
Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting 
Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace."  With  such  marked  resem 
blances,  it  is  impossible  almost  to  doubt  the  identity  of  the 
two;  and  looking  at  the  whole  of  these  subsequent  references 
to  the  prediction  of  the  Immanuel,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say, 
that  the  prophet  himself  stretches  out  the  hand  to  the  Evan 
gelist. 


460  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

(3.)  Thirdly,  the  interpretation  we  oppose  would  find  only 
comfort  and  encouragement  in  what  was  announced  to  the 
house  of  David;  and  thereby  leaves  altogether  unexplained 
the  element  of  indignation  and  threatening  with  which  it  is  so 
pointedly  introduced.  als  it  a  small  thing  for  you  to  weary 
men,  but  will  ye  weary  my  God  also?  Therefore  the  Lord 
Himself  shall  give  you  a  sign;  Behold,  the  virgin  shall  con 
ceive,"  etc.  Does  it  seem  a  natural  or  satisfactory  way  to 
understand  this  address,  to  read  it  as  if  it  meant,  Because  ye 
have  wearied  men  by  your  faithless  and  foolish  procedure,  and 
are  proceeding  to  do  the  same  with  God,  therefore  the  Lord 
will  Himself  give  you  the  most  astonishing  sign  of  His  gracious 
nearness  and  protection.  This,  surely,  would  have  been  a 
premise  and  a  conclusion  that  hung  strangely  together;  and 
so  some  of  its  propounders  have  felt ;  for  they  have  endeavoured 
to  turn  the  therefore  (p? )  into  a  nevertheless,  which  would, 
indeed,  make  an  intelligible  meaning,  but  it  is  entirely  un 
warranted  by  the  usage  of  the  word.  There  were,  no  doubt, 
at  the  time,  pious  individuals  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and 
of  these  some  probably  in  the  house  of  David,  who  needed  a 
word  of  encouragement,  and  for  whom  also  it  was  provided, 
in  the  communication  actually  given ;  but  such  persons  are  not 
formally  brought  into  notice.  It  is  with  the  false  and  back 
sliding  portion,  that  the  prophet  directly  and  ostensibly  deals; 
hence,  whatever  of  a  hopeful  nature  might  be  wrapt  up  in 
the  message  he  delivers,  we  are  constrained  to  look  for  some 
thing  also — something  even  of  a  striking  and  palpable  kind — 
which  involved  a  work  of  rebuke  and  judgment.  In  presenting 
nothing  of  this  description,  the  interpretation  und'er  review 
entirely  fails  to  account  for  a  prominent  feature  in  the  pro 
phetic  announcement. 

These  objections  which  are  derived  mainly  from  the  Old 
Testament  passage  itself,  seem  fatal  to  the  view,  under  any 
modification,  which  would  find  in  the  Immanuel  an  ordinary 
child,  born  at  that  particular  time.  In  urging  them,  no  re 
ference  has  been  made  to  incidental  topics — such  as  the  at 
tempt  sometimes  made  to  identify  this  child  with  that  said,  in 
ch.  viii.  1-4,  to  be  born  of  the  prophet  and  the  prophetess; 


MATT.  I.  23;  ISA.  vii.  14.  461 

for  this  identification  is  utterly  arbitrary,  the  latter  child 
having  both  a  different  parentage  ascribed  to  it,  and  a  dif 
ferent  name;  nor  can  it  be  consistently  understood  otherwise 
than  of  a  transaction  in  the  ideal  region  of  prophetic  vision.1 

II.  It  is  one  thing,  however,  to  make  good,  or  to  appear 
to  make  good  a  negative,  and  quite  another  thing  to  establish 
satisfactorily  a  positive,  view  of  a  controverted  subject.  And 
as  the  strength  and  plausibility  of  the  class  of  interpretations 
now  considered  lie  in  the  apparent  necessity  of  findinga  present 
birth  to  render  the  child  a  sign  (as  it  is  supposed  the  prophet 
meant  it  to  be  considered)  of  an  immediately  approaching  de 
liverance,  it  is  necessary  to  show  how,  on  the  supposition  of 
the  Messiah  being  directly  contemplated  in  the  prediction  of 
Immanuel,  this  objection  can  be  met. 

(1.)  Now,  it  is  at  the  outset  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the 
prophecy  has  in  its  very  form  something  enigmatical — pur 
posely  has  it;  both  from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  which  re 
fers  to  the  deep  things  of  God,  and  from  the  condition  of  the 
people,  which  was  such  as  to  call  for  what  would,  in  a  manner, 
drive  them  from  their  superficial  mode  of  looking  at  Divine 
things.  Our  Lord. Himself  sometimes,  for  like  reasons,  spoke 
enigmatically;  He  did  so,  for  example,  near  the  commence 
ment  of  His  ministry,  when  He  said,  "Destroy  this  temple, 
and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up" — an  announcement  which 
none  present  at  the  time  understood,  and  which  was  not  even 
intended  to  be  understood,  except  by  such  as  would  give  them 
selves  to  prayerful  and  earnest  inquiry.  The  real  import  and 
bearing  of  Isaiah's  prediction,  in  like  manner,  lay  beyond  the 
depth  of  those  who  had  no  eye  to  look  beneath  the  surface, 
and  might  even  baffle  the  research  and  inquiry  of  those  who 
possessed  such  an  eye,  till  farther  revelations  and  the  course 
of  Providence  had  thrown  additional  light  on  it.  Undoubt 
edly,  there  is  no  want  of  similar  announcements  in  Isaiah  and 
the  other  prophetical  books. 

(2.)  Another  thing  to  be  kept  in  mind  is  the  precise  start 
ing-point,  or  crisis  of  affairs,  out  of  which  the  prophecy  origi- 
1  See  Prophecy  in  its  Distinctive  Nature,  etc.,  p.  505. 

39* 


462  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

nated,  and  which  it  was  designed  to  meet.  The  combination 
formed  by  the  kings  of  Syria  and  Israel  had  for  its  object, 
not  merely  the  invasion  of  Judah  and  the  subjugation  of  the 
king,  but  the  entire  displacement  of  the  house  of  David,  and 
the  substitution  of  another  dynasty  under  the  son  of  Tabeal 
(ver.  6 ;)  in  other  words,  the  avowed  aim*  of  the  hostile  party 
was  to  make  void  God's  covenant  with  the  house  of  David. 
This  was  the  audacious  design  which  called  forth  the  first  word 
of  God  on  the  occasion,  and  led  Isaiah  to  give  to  Ahaz  and 
his  people  a  solemn  assurance  that  the  scheme  should  certainly 
miscarry  (ver.  8,  9.)  Yet,  in  the  very  act  of  doing  this,  he 
distinctly  intimated,  that  for  Ahaz  and  his  house  there  still 
was  danger — danger  arising,  not  so  much  from  any  plans  or 
power  of  their  open  adversaries,  as  from  their  own  faithless 
and  ungodly  spirit;  for  the  word  concluded  by  saying,  "If  ye 
will  not  believe,  surely  ye  shall  not  be  established."  As  much 
as  to  say,  Even  the  overthrow  of  your  immediate  enemies, 
and  the  defeating  of  their  hostile  policy,  cannot  secure  to  you 
and  your  family  the  possession  of  the  throne,  and  the  esta 
blishment  of  the  kingdom  in  your  hands — unless  you  rid  your 
selves  of  the  evil  spirit  of  unbelief,  and  learn  to  rest  in  the 
word  and  power  of  Jehovah. 

(3.)  Then,  partly  with  the  view  of  bringing  out  this  fatal 
defect  in  the  character  of  Ahaz,  and  partly  for  the  purpose 
of  unfolding  God's  own  design  as  to  the  establishment  of  the 
kingdom  in  the  house  of  David,  the  prophet  represents  him 
self  as  giving  Ahaz  the  option  of  a  sign — a  sign  of  what?  A 
sign,  we  are  constrained  by  the  connexion  to  think,  of  God's 
purpose  to  maintain  inviolate  the  covenant  with  David,  and 
perpetuate  the  kingdom  therein  granted  to  his  seed.  Ahaz, 
however,  as  if  already  satisfied,  pretended  to  regard  the  offer 
as  superfluous,  and  declined  asking  a  sign — while  really  his 
heart  was  set  upon  earthly  confidences,  and  from  want  of  faith 
in  the  assurances  given  him,  he  was  calling  in  the  aid  of  the 
king  of  Assyria  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  16,  20.)  Hence,  the  Lord 
interposes  to  give  a  sign;  but  of  what  nature?  Such  a  sign, 
we  naturally  expect  in  the  circumstances,  as  would  show  at 
once  His  determination  to  maintain  the  covenant,  and  His 


MATT.  i.  23;  ISA.  vii.  14.  463 

just  displeasure  with,  or  even  virtual  repudiation  of,  the  ex 
isting  representatives  of  the  house  and  throne  of  David.  While 
men  should  be  made  to  see  that  God's  covenant  must  stand 
fast,  they  must  also  see,  it  would  be  in  a  way  that  should  augur 
no  good  to  persons  in  such  ill  accordance  with  its  design.1 

(4.)  In  this  state  of  matters,  when  there  was  given  the  sign 
of  a  virgin  conceiving  and  bringing  forth  a  son,  whose  name 
should  be  Immanuel,  we  are,  if  not  absolutely  necessitated, 
at  least  most  naturally  led  to  think  of  a  son,  that  should  bear 
directly  and  conclusively  upon  the  point  at  issue;  namely, 
the  establishment  and  perpetuation  of  the  kingdom  in  con 
formity  with  the  covenant  of  David: — a  son  who,  by  his  very 
birth  and  being,  should  form  the  truest  sign  of  the  full  reali 
zation  of  all  that  properly  belonged  to  it.  Such  a  sign,  could 
it  be  given,  would  settle,  as  nothing  else  could,  the  pending 
controversy.  And  what  the  connexion  thus  seems  to  point 
to,  is  confirmed  by  the  implied  contrast  between  this  Son  of 
the  virgin,  the  destined  possessor  of  David's  throne,  and  what 
had  previously  been  said  of  the  possessors  of  the  two  rival 
thrones  in  Syria  and  Israel  (ver.  8,)  "The  head  of  Syria  is 
Damascus,  and  the  head  of  Damascus  is  Ilezin  (these  and  no 
thing  more — they  ascend  no  higher  than  a  mere  earthly  city 
and  a  frail  human  being;)  and  in  sixty-five  years  Ephraini 
shall  be  broken,  that  it  be  not  a  people."  That  is,  both  tho 
two  have  about  them  the  weakness  and  instability  of  the  world ; 
they  shall  presently  become  striking  examples  of  its  fleeting 
and  transitory  existence.  But  now,  on  the  other  hand,  when 
the  prophet  turns  to  the  kingdom  of  David,  the  Divine  comes 
prominently  into  view  along  with  the  human ;  to  establish  it, 
Deity  itself  is  to  become  incarnate ;  and  the  inference,  there 
fore,  is  plain — all  attempts  to  overthrow  it  must  be  fruitless ; 
it  moves  in  the  element  of  immortality,  and  shall  abide  for 
ever. 

(5.)  But  the  mention  of  such  a  good  implied  for  existing 

1  It  makes  no  difference,  as  to  the  essential  nature  and  purport  of  the  re 
presentation  above  given,  if  we  suppose  the  transactions  arid  words  to  have 
passed  in  vision;  for  in  that  case  the  offer  of  the  sign  to  Ahaz  and  his  refusal 
would  simply  have  served  as  a  cover  to  bring  out  his  actual  state  of  mind; 
precisely  as  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Ezekiel  with  the  elders  of  Judah. 


464  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

parties  a  corresponding  evil;  the  sign  given  bespeaks  a  fall  as 
well  as  a  rising;  and  a  contrast  was  indicated,  not  merely 
between  the  kingdom  of  David  and  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and 
Israel,  but  also  between  the  child  Immanuel  and  the  degenerate 
house  of  Ahaz.  For  in  this  Divine  purpose  and  provision  for 
a  better  future,  the  existing  royal  house  is  entirely  overleapt; 
silently  passed  by  on  account  of  their  unfaithfulness  and  cor 
ruption,  when  the  higher  interests  of  the  kingdom  and  its 
ultimate  stability  come  into  consideration.  The  sign,  in  which 
the  nature  and  destiny  of  the  kingdom  were  to  be  imaged, 
bursts  upon  the  view  as  a  prodigy  from  an  unknown  quarter; 
it  is  to  be  a  child  born,  not  to  the  present  occupant  of  the 
throne,  nor  to  any  future  occupant,  but  to  a  virgin;  and  even 
she  marked  out  by  no  distinct  specifications  of  place  or  time, — 
foreseen  only  by  the  omniscient  eye  of  God.  He  it  is  alone, 
who  charges  Himself  with  the  accomplishment  of  the  result; 
in  His  own  time  He  will  bring  forth  the  almah  and  her  Son — 
as  if  Ahaz  and  his  successors  in  the  kingdom  had  no  personal 
interest  in  the  matter! 

(6.)  This  alone  is  ominous  of  evil,  but  what  follows  is  much 
more  so.  And  in  what  follows  we  include,  not  merely  ver. 
15  and  16 — with  which  commentators  usually  and  unhappily 
stop — but  all  the  concluding  portion  of  the  chapter.  There 
is  no  real  break  or  proper  termination  at  the  close  of  ver.  16, 
as  if  the  prophet  intended  to  shut  up  his  present  communica 
tion  there,  and  commence  afresh  with  something  different. 
The  whole,  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  is  but  one  message,  and 
is  required  in  its  totality  to  make  out  a  full  arid  consistent 
meaning.  From  what  follows,  then,  it  appears  that  the  Son, 
on  whose  birth  all  hope  hung,  was  to  grow  up  in  the  midst  of 
a  depressed  state  of  things;  such  as  betokened  a  terrible  and 
wide-spread  previous  desolation.  The  precise  time  is  left  al 
together  indefinite.  From  anything  that  is  said  in  the  pro 
phecy,  it  might  be  comparatively  near  or  remote;  but  the 
position  and  aspect  of  affairs,  amid  which  Immanuel  was  to 
appear,  is  distinctly  indicated  to  be  one  in  which  the  reverse 
of  prosperity  and  strength  should  prevail.  For  no  sooner 
does  the  child  appear,  than  butter  and  honey  are  assigned  as 


MATT.  i.  23;  ISA.  vii.  14.  465 

His  food  (ver.  15,)  and  not  for  Him  only,  but  the  people  in 
the  land  generally  are  afterwards  spoken  of  as  having  these 
for  their  support  (ver.  22:)  and  butter  and  honey  are  most 
fitly  regarded  here  as  the  symbols  of  a  reduced  and  prostrate 
condition,  being  the  products  of  a  land,  far  from  barren  in 
deed,  but  yielding  of  its  resources  after  little  or  no  cultivation. 
It  tells  us,  that  at  the  period  of  Immanuel's  birth,  and  while 
He  should  Himself  be  still  in  the  feebleness  of  childhood,  all 
around  should  be  in  a  weak,  dilapidated,  impoverished  con 
dition — in  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  not  less  than  in  the  regions 
of  Syria  and  Israel.  These,  indeed,  should  experience  the 
calamity  first;  before  the  child  should  have  out-grown  His 
childhood,  they  should  have  "been  forsaken  of  both  their 
kings."  This  does  not  mean,  as  is  very  commonly  assumed, 
that  the  then  reigning  kings  of  Syria  and  Israel  should  have 
ceased  to  fill  the  throne ;  far  more  than  that — the  land  in  both 
its  divisions  was  to  be  bereft  of  those  holding  the  state  and 
office  of  king  ;  it  should  have  ceased  to  have  kingdoms.  There 
was  no  need,  therefore,  for  the  true  children  of  God  to  be 
greatly  concerned  about  them;  Immanuel,  when  He  came,  with 
the  manifestations  of  Divine  power  and  glory,  should  not  find 
them  even  in  existence.  But,  if  the  earlier  and  the  greater 
prostration  should  befall  them,  the  house  and  kingdom  of  David 
should  also  be  marred  with  symptoms  of  humiliation  and  decay. 
This  is  more  briefly  indicated  in  ver.  15  by  the  eating  of  butter 
and  honey — nature's  products  in  pastoral  countries — and 
then  more  pointedly  and  fully  at  ver.  17,  where  the  prophet, 
turning  to  the  ungodly  Ahaz,  says,  "The  Lord  shall  bring 
upon  thee,  and  upon  thy  people,  and  upon  tliy  father's  house, 
days  that  have  not  come,  from  the  day  that  Ephraim  departed 
from  Judah,"  etc.  In  a  word,  the  substance  of  the  message 
was,  God's  covenant  should  certainly  stand  fast,  and  the  sign 
to  be  given  of  its  stability  should  eventually  be  brought  to 
pass;  but,  meanwhile,  the  kingdom  of  David,  in  its  existing 
form,  together  with  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and  Israel,  should 
undergo  a  sad  and  calamitous  reverse;  they  should  altogether 
go  down,  while  it  should  be  diminished  and  brought  low.  And 
the  kingdom  of  David,  as  the  object  of  faith  and  hope  to  the 


466  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

Lord's  people,  was  to  spring  as  from  a  fresh  starting-point 
in  the  person  of  Immanuel,  and  out  of  poverty  and  weakness 
rise  to  its  proper  magnitude  and  glory. 

Such,  by  a  careful  consideration  of  the  original  passage,  ap 
pears  to  be  the  progress  of  thought  and  the  richness  of  mean 
ing  embodied  in  the  prophecy  here  referred  to  by  the  Evan 
gelist  Matthew.  If  we  are  right  in  the  view  that  has  been 
given  of  it,  the  Evangelist  was  undoubtedly  right  in  the  use, 
to  which  he  applied  it;  and  not  a  tendency  to  catch  at  some 
obvious  and  superficial  meaning,  but  a  capacity  to  apprehend 
the  real  import  of  the  prediction,  was  what  determined  him  in 
turning  it  to  such  an  account.  Understood  in  the  light,  in 
which  it  has  now  been  presented,  it  stands  in  no  need  of  the 
embarrassing  hypothesis  of  a  double  birth,  nor  of  the  fanciful 
supposition  of  Hengstenberg,  (Christology,  vol.  ii.,)  and  also 
of  Ewald,  (if  I  rightly  understand  his  view  of  the  passage,) — 
the  supposition  of  the  promised  child  being  ideally  present  in 
his  birth  and  growth  to  boyhood  before  the  spiritual  eye  of 
the  prophet,  and  constituting,  as  so  present,  the  sign  of  a 
speedy  deliverance  of  Judah  from  Syria  and  Israel.  Such  an 
impersonation  were  far  too  subtle  and  involved  for  the  purpose 
in  question;  and  it  would,  besides,  most  incongruously  con 
found  together  the  ideal  and  the  real — making  the  prophet's 
internal  apprehension  of  a  future  event,  a  sign  to  the  people 
of  a  more  immediate  external  reality.  The  sign,  however,  as 
already  stated,  was  not  intended  to  be  directly  or  properly  a 
pledge  of  Judah's  deliverance  from  her  impending  evils;  it 
was  strictly  a  sign  of  God's  purpose  to  ratify  His  covenant 
with  David,  and  build  up  his  throne  to  all  generations;  and  a 
sign  so  conceived  and  announced  as  to  speak  at  once  of  judg 
ment  and  of  mercy  to  the  existing  representative  of  David's 
house. 

II. 
Matt.  ii.  15;  Hos.  xi.  1. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  portion  of  Ilosea  here  ap 
plied  to  the  circumstance  of  our  Lord's  recall  from  His  tem 
porary  sojourn  in  Egypt,  was  in  its  original  connexion  sim 
ply  an  historical  statement  respecting  what  God  had  done  for 


MATT.  II.  15;  HOS.  xi.  i.  467 

the  national  Israel  in  the  commencing  period  of  their  history. 
The  whole  passage  is,  "  When  Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved 
him,  and  I  called  ray  son  out  of  Egypt."  The  question,  there 
fore,  is,  how  the  Evangelist  could  find  in  such  a  passage  any 
proper  pre-intimation  of  the  circumstance  in  our  Lord's  life 
to  which  he  has  so  specifically  applied  it?  The  application 
can  only  be  understood  and  vindicated  on  the  ground  of  a  ty 
pical  relationship  between  the  literal  Israel  and  the  Messiah ; 
but  on  this  ground  it  admits  of  a  satisfactory  explanation. 
The  relationship  in  question  was  not  obscurely  indicated  even 
in  Old  Testament  Scripture;  and*  particularly  in  the  latter 
portion  of  Isaiah's  writings,  where  there  is  a  constant  transi 
tion  from  Israel  in  the  literal  sense  to  an  ideal  and  prospec 
tive  Israel — from  an  Israel  called,  indeed,  to  the  enjoyment 
of  high  privileges,  and  the  discharge  of  important  obligations, 
but  still  compassed  about  with  imperfection,  backsliding  and 
trouble,  to  an  Israel,  in  whom  the  calling  was  to  find  its  ade 
quate  fulfilment — God's  elect,  in  whom  His  soul  delighted, 
and  by  whom  His  name  was  to  be  glorified,  sin  and  evil  purged 
away  from  the  condition  of  His  people,  and  the  world  restored 
to  the  favour  of  Heaven.  (Compare,  for  example,  on  the  one 
side,  ch.  xlii.  19-25,  xliii.  22-28,  xlviii.  18-22,  lix.  1-19;  and 
on  the  other,  xlii.  1-8,  xlix.  1-13,  liii.,  lix.  20,  21,  Ixi.)  The 
same  sort  of  relationship  was  indicated  in  another  class  of 
prophecies,  between  the  son  of  David  in  the  literal  sense,  and 
a  son  some  time  to  appear,  who  should  occupy  an  unspeakably 
higher  position,  and  raise  the  kingdom  to  a  state  of  purity 
and  bliss  it  could  never  otherwise  have  reached.  (Compare 
here  also,  on  the  one  side,  2  Sam.  vii.  14 ;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  30-32, 
38—45;  1  Kings  xi.  36—39;  Amos  ix.  11;  and  on  the  other, 
Ps.  ii.,  xlv.,  Ixxii.,  ex.;  Isa.  ix.  6,  7,  etc.)  There  was  no  es 
sential  difference  between  this  later  covenant  with  the  house 
of  David,  and  the  earlier  covenant  with  Abraham  or  Israel; 
they  both  aimed  at  the  same  great  end  of  obtaining  salvation 
and  blessing  for  the  world,  in  connexion  with  the  establish 
ment  of  truth  and  righteousness : — only,  what  the  one  proposed 
to  accomplish  through  the  seed  of  Israel,  the  other,  more  spe 
cifically  and  individually,  sought  to  work  out  by  the  adminis- 


468  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

tration  of  a  kingdom,  in  the  hands  of  a  son  of  David.  The 
design  of  each  covenant  should  be  realized,  when  (as  it  might 
be  indifferently  expressed)  the  kingdom  among  the  sons  of  men 
had  become  the  Lord's,  or  all  the  families  of  the  earth  were 
truly  blessed  in  Him.  Fundamentally,  therefore,  the  relation 
of  the  promised  Messiah  to  David's  immediate  son  was  the 
same  with  that  of  Christ  to  Israel ;  it  was  such  as,  in  God's 
dispensations,  subsists  between  the  present  and  the  ultimate, 
the  preparatory  and  the  final — that  is,  in  both  there  were 
relatively  the  same  place  and  calling,  but  these  in  the  earlier 
connected  with  an  inferior-line  of  things,  partaking  more  of 
the  human,  and  the  external, — in  the  later,  rising  more  into 
the  sphere  of  the  spiritual  Divine ;  consequently,  in  the  one 
case  intermingled  on  every  hand  with  imperfection  and  fail 
ure,  in  the  other,  attaining  to  heavenly  excellence  and  per 
fection.  Such  generally  is  the  relation  between  the  Old  and 
New — between  type  and  antitype;  and  such  it  is  also  here. 
Christ  is  at  once  the  antitypical  or  the  true  Israel,  and  the 
antitypical  or  true  Son  of  David;  since  in  Him  all  the  pro 
mises  made  concerning  these  were  to  stand  fast,  and  the  high 
calling  of  God  was  to  find  its  proper  realization.  Hence,  the 
prophetic  announcements  respecting  Abraham's  seed  of  bless 
ing,  and  David's  son  and  heir,  are,  in  their  higher  bearing  and 
import,  ascribed  to  the  Messiah ;  they  have  no  adequate  accom 
plishment  till  they  find  it  in  Him,  (Acts  ii.  25,  26,  xiii.  33; 
Heb.  i.  5.) 

Now,  as  before  the  incarnation  the  Spirit  gave  forth  a  series 
of  prophetical  utterances,  based  on  the  relationship  of  Israel 
to  the  Messiah,  and  again  a  series  based  on  His  relationship 
to  David,  it  was  quite  natural,  that  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament,  under  the  guidance  of  the  same  Spirit,  should  at 
times  mark  how  the  things  concerning  both  were  discovering 
themselves  in  the  history  of  Christ.  And  in  doing  so,  we 
might  expect  them  to  take,  not  merely  the  prophetical  pas 
sages,  which  on  the  ground  of  the  typical  relationship,  in  either 
of  its  forms,  pointed  to  the  corning  future,  but  also  occasion 
ally  at  least,  to  render  prominent  the  relationship  itself,  and 
show  how,  by  remarkable  coincidences  in  God's  providence, 


MATT.  ii.  15;  HOS.  XL  1.  469 

Jesus  was,  in  a  manner,  identified  with  the  literal  Israel,  or 
with  the  house  of  David.  In  the  nature  of  things  there  could 
not  be  more  than  occasional  coincidences  of  the  kind  referred 
to ;  for  it  had  been  impossible,  or  if  possible,  it  had  been  on 
many  accounts  unsuitable,  that  Jesus  should  have  been  made 
to  pass  through  all  the  recorded  experiences  belonging  either 
to  Israel  at  large,  or  to  David's  house.  It  were  enough,  if  a 
few  noticeable  agreements  took  place,  fitted  from  their  own 
nature,  or  from  the  manner  in  which  they  were  brought  about, 
to  serve  as  finger-posts  to  direct  the  eyes  of  men  to  Him  that 
was  to  come,  or,  like  Heaven's  seal  on  the  connexion  between 
the  beginnings  and  the  end,  to  certify  them  that  the  old  was 
at  length  in  its  higher  form  coming  into  being.  Such  was  the 
birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem,  the  city  of  David,— fulfilling,  in 
deed,  a  prophecy  which  had  been  announced  regarding  it  (not 
overlooked  by  the  Evangelist,  ch.  ii.  5,  6,)  but  itself,  especially 
when  effected  by  so  singular  turns  of  Providence,  a  sign  from 
above,  that  the  long  expected  Son  of  David  was  born  into  the 
world.  Of  the  same  kind,  and  pointing  to  the  other  form  of 
the  typical  relationship,  was  the  removal  of  the  infant  Saviour 
for  a  time  to  an  asylum  in  Egypt,  and  His  recall  thence  when 
the  season  of  danger  was  over;  it  was  substantially  doing  over 
again  what  had  been  done  in  the  infancy  of  the  national  Is 
rael,  and  thereby  helping  a  weak  faith  to  recognise  in  this  re 
markable  babe  the  new  Israel,  the  child  of  hope  for  the  world. 
Of  the  same  kind,  again,  was  His  withdrawal,  through  the 
Spirit,  into  the  wilderness,  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil,  and  His 
sojourn  there  for  forty  days — the  number,  and  the  place,  and 
the  object,  all  pointing  back  to  Israel's  forty  years'  tempta 
tion  in  the  desert;  but  by  the  day  for  a  year  (instead  of,  as 
in  their  case,  a  year  for  a  day,)  and  by  the  baffling  of  the 
tempter  in  every  assault,  showing  how  infinitely  superior  the 
new  was  to  the  old,  and  that  here,  at  last,  was  the  Israel  in 
whom  God  was  to  be  fully  glorified. 

If  these  principles  in  the  Divine  government  are  kept  in 

view,  no  difficulty  will  be  found  in  the  application  made  by 

the  Evangelist  of  Hos.  xi.  1  to  our  Lord's  return  from  Egypt. 

His  temporary  descent  thither,  and  subsequent  recall  to  the 

40 


470  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

land  appointed  for  the  fulfilment  of  His  high  vocation,  as  just 
noticed,  was  one  of  the  more  striking  and  palpable  coinci 
dences  between  His  outward  history,  and  that  of  Israel,  which 
were  ordered  and  designed  by  God  to  point  Him  out  as  the 
true  Israel,  the  antitype  of  the  old;  and  the  passage  in  Ho- 
sea,  which  records  the  earlier  event,  necessarily  formed,  by 
reason  of  the  typical  connexion,  a  virtual  prophecy  of  the 
corresponding  event  in  the  future.  It  embodied  a  typical 
fact;  and  so,  when  viewed  in  connexion  with  God's  ulterior 
design,  it  enclosed  a  presage  of  the  antitypical  counterpart. 
Substantially  the  requirements  of  the  type  might  have  been 
met,  if  some  other  local  asylum  had  been"  provided  for  the 
youthful  Saviour  than  the  literal  Egypt — precisely  as,  after 
wards,  the  circumstantials  of  His  temptation  differed  in  time 
and  place  from  the  prior  temptation  of  Israel.  But  to  render 
the  correspondence  here  more  obvious  and  convincing,  the 
new  was  made  formally ',  as  well  as  substantially,  to  coincide 
with  the  old ;  so  that,  for  those  who  were  watching  and  de 
sirous  to  learn  from  the  footsteps  of  Providence,  there  might 
be  the  less  difficulty  in  discerning  the  fulfilment  of  the  typi 
cal  prediction,  when,  the  Lord  anew  called  his  son  out  of 
Egypt. 

Matt.  ii.  18 ;  Jer.  xxxi.  -15. 

The  application  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy,  about  Rachel  be 
wailing  her  lost  children,  and  refusing  to  be  comforted  on  ac 
count  of  the  apparently  hopeless  deprivation  she  had  sus 
tained,  to  the  slaughter  of  the  children  at  Bethlehem,  un 
doubtedly  proceeds  upon  a  certain  connexion  between  the 
earlier  and  the  later  event.  But  from  the  very  nature  of 
things,  and  the  terms  of  the  passage  cited,  the  connexion 
could  not  be  regarded  as  of  such  a  close  and  organic  kind,  as 
that  indicated  in  the  last  quotation.  There,  stress  was  laid 
even  on  the  external  resemblance  between  what  befell  Christ, 
and  what*  had  anciently  befallen  Israel;  the  connexion  of 
both  with  Egypt  formed  the  immediate  and  ostensible  ground 
of  the  word,  spoken  originally  of  the  one,  being  extended  to 
the  other.  Here,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  palpable  di- 


MATT.  II.  18;   JER.  XXXI.  15.  471 

versity  as  to  the  external  circumstances ;  for  the  scene  of  ac 
tion  in  the  one  case  was  Rama,  a  city  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin, 
a  few  miles  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem,  while  in  the  other 
it  was   Bethlehem,  a   city   about  the   same  distance  to   the 
south,  in  the  tribe  of  Judah;  and,  consequently,  if  respect 
were  had   to  literal  exactness,  Leah,  the  ancestral  mother  of 
Judah,  should  have  been  addressed  as  the  chief  mourner  on 
the  present  occasion,  as  Rachel  had  been  on  the  former.     In 
such  circumstances  of    obvious  and  palpable   disagreement, 
the  Evangelist  could   not  possibly  mean,  that  the  passage  he 
quoted  from  Jeremiah  had  either  been  directly  uttered  of  the 
scene  at  Bethlehem,  or  even  that  the  original  mourning  at 
Rama  had  a  typical  relation,  in  the  stricter  sense,  to  that  at 
Bethlehem.     And  hence  he  does  not  say,  as  he  usually  does, 
that  the  circumstances  took  place  in  order  that  the  word  might 
be  fulfilled,  but  merely  that  then  was  fulfilled  what  had  been 
spoken  by  Jeremiah.     The  kind  of  fulfilment  indicated  must 
be  determined   by  the  points   of   agreement  in  the  two  re 
lated  transactions.     Even  in  its  original  application,  the  pas 
sage  is  highly  poetical  in  form,  and  cannot  be  interpreted  as 
a  piece  of  prosaic  writing.     It  was  at  Rama,  as  we  learn  from 
Jer.  xl.  1,  that  the  last  band  of  captives  was  assembled  by 
the  captains  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  before  they  were  sent  into 
exile;  and  either  in  anticipation  of  this  sore  calamity,  or  in 
reference  to  it  after  it  had  taken  place,  the  prophet  repre 
sents  Rachel,  the   ancestral  mother  of  the   tribe,  where  the 
hapless  exiles  were  gathered,  bewailing  the   fate  of  her  off 
spring,  and  giving  way  to  an  inconsolable  grief,  as  if  all  were 
gone.     The  introduction  of  Rachel  is,  of  course,  a  mere  cover, 
to  bring  out  in  vivid  colours,  the  sadness  of  the  occasion,  and 
the  apparently  hopeless  character  of  the  calamity;  to  human 
eye,  and  especially  to  the  passionate  fondness  of  maternal  af 
fection,  it  seemed  as  if  Israel  had  utterly  perished  under  the 
stroke  of  Nebuchadnezzar.     Yet  it  was  not  so  in  reality;  and 
the  prophet  presently  goes  on  to  assure  the  disconsolate  mo 
ther,  that  her  grief  was  inordinate,  that  her  children  should 
return  again  from  the  land  of  the  enemy,  and  that  there  was 
hope  in  her  end. 


472  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

Now,  with  all  the  circumstantial  diversities  that  distinguish 
the  original  event  at  Rama,  and  the  message  it  called  forth, 
from  the  slaughter  of  the  infants  in  Bethlehem,  there  still  13 
a  fundamental  agreement  in  the  more  peculiar  features  of  both. 
Herod  was  the  new  Nebuchadnezzar,  who,  by  his  cruel  and 
crafty  policy,  sought  to  do  what,  after  another  fashion,  the 
Chaldean  conqueror  thought  he  had  done,  viz.,  extinguish 
for  ever  the  better  hopes  and  aspirations  of  Israel.  When  the 
one,  after  having  razed  the  foundations  of  Jerusalem,  bore 
away  from  Rama  the  shattered  remnants  of  her  people,  he  had 
struck,  as  he  conceived,  a  fatal  blow  at  their  singular  preten 
sions  and  distinctive  glory.  And,  in  like  manner,  when  Herod 
smote  the  children  at  Bethlehem,  with  the  impious  design  of 
embracing  in  the  slaughter  the  new-born  "King  of  the  Jews," 
he  would,  had  his  aim  been  accomplished,  have  buried  in  the 
dust  all  that  was  to  render  Israel  pre-eminent  among  the  na 
tions.  They  might  as  well,  thenceforth,  have  ceased  to  exist, 
gone  to  a  hopeless  exile,  or  a  dishonoured  grave.  So  that, 
looking  upon  matters  with  the  eye  of  sense,  the  ancestral  mo 
ther  might,  as  of  old,  have  raised  anew  the  wail  of  sorrow, 
even  such  as  might  appear  incapable  of  any  true  solace.  Yet 
God,  in  His  paternal  faithfulness  and  oversight,  had  provided 
against  the  worst,  and  here  again  had  taken  the  wise  in  his 
own  craftiness.  As  regarded  the  main  object  in  view,  the 
stroke  fell  powerless  to  the  ground;  the  bird  escaped  from 
the  snare  of  the  fowler.  But  situated  as  matters  now  were — 
not  only  with  a  Herod  in  the  seat  of  power,  but  with  an  Hero- 
dian  party,  who  thought  that  the  best  thing  for  the  people  was 
to  maintain  the  Herodian  interest,  it  was  well  to  bring  this 
memorable  transaction  of  Gospel  times  into  formal  connexion 
with  the  ancient  catastrophe — to  show  that  Herod  was  virtu 
ally  now  what  Nebuchadnezzar  was  then — and  that,  so  far  as 
concerned  the  real  glory  and  salvation  of  Israel,  to  look  for 
help  from  the  existing  representative  of  the  worldly  power  in 
Judea,  was  like  going  to  Babylon  for  pity  and  succour.  From 
such  a  quarter  misery  and  despair,  not  life  and  hope,  were 
what  might  surely  be  looked  for. 


MATT.  vin.  17;  ISA.  LIII.  4.  473 

IV. 

Matt.  viii.  17;  Isa.  liii.  4. 

The  explanation  given  of  the  terms,  by  which  the  Evange 
list  renders  the  original  in  this  quotation,  has  shown  the  faith 
fulness  of  the  rendering.  It  is  at  once  more  specific,  and 
more  literal,  not  only  than  the  Septuagint,  but  also  than  the 
authorized  version  of  the  passage  in  Isaiah,  which  has,  "He 
hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows."  Sicknesses 
and  pains,  however,  are  the  more  exact  synonyms  for  the  He 
brew  terms;  and  it  is  not  bearing  and  carrying,  anyhow,  that 
is  ascribed  to  the  Messiah  respecting  them,  but  more  specially 
taking  them  on  Himself,  as  a  burden  bearing  them  on  His  own 
person.  Such  also  is  the  sense  put  upon  them  by  the  Evan 
gelist.  Yet  Meyer  says,  "The  passage  is  cited  according  to 
the  original,  but  not  in  conformity  with  its  import,  since,  ac 
cording  to  this,  the  Messiah  is  represented  as  an  atoning  sin- 
bearer;  for  the  parallel  verbs,  fapfidvetv  and  fta0Td£etv,  must 
here  be  rendered  (against  the  meaning  of  the  corresponding 
Hebrew  words)  to  take  away^  to  remove,  on  account  of  the 
historical  connexion  in  which  the  citation  is  found."  There 
is,  however,  no  such  necessity;  and  Meyer  here,  as  in  many 
other  cases,  merely  adopts  a  superficial  historical  sense  as  the 
only  tenable  one,  and  then  pronounces  an  arbitrary  and  pre 
sumptuous  judgment  on  the  sacred  record.  It  is,  first  of  all, 
riot  sins,  but  sicknesses,  or  diseases  and  pains,  that  primarily 
and  directly  are  the  subject  of  discourse.  And,  secondly, 
while  the  sense  of  bearing  away  or  removing  these  would  have 
suited  the  connexion,  it  is  not  absolutely  required  by  it;  nay, 
the  other  and  literal  rendering  gives  us,  though  a  less  obvi 
ous,  yet  a  much  profounder  insight  into  our  Lord's  connexion 
with  the  troubles  and  distresses  of  mankind.  In  respect  to 
these  also  He  had  a  vicarious  relation  to  fill — to  charge  Him 
self  with  the  burden  of  human  sorrows,  as  well  as  with  the 
guilt  from  which  they  spring;  and,  in  order  to  remove  them, 
He  must  bring  them  into  contact  with  His  own  sympathies, 
and  powers,  and  benevolent  working. 

Hengstenberg,  in    his   comment    on   the   original  passage 

40* 


474  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

(Christology,  vol.  ii.,)  maintains  the  rendering  above  given, 
and  justifies  the  use  made  of  it  by  the  Evangelist.  He  says, 
"According  to  the  opinion  of  several  interpreters,  by  diseases 
all  outward  and  inward  sufferings  are  figuratively  designated; 
according  to  the  opinion  of  others,  spiritual  diseases,  sins. 
But,  from  the  relation  alone  of  this  verse  to  the  preceding,  it 
appears  that  here,  in  the  first  instance,  diseases  and  pains,  in 
the  ordinary  sense,  are  spoken  of;  just  as  the  blind  and  deaf, 
in  ch.  xxxv.,  are,  in  the  first  instance,  they  who  are  naturally 
blind  and  deaf.  Diseases,  in  the  sense  of  sins,  do  not  occur 
at  all  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  circumstance,  that  in  the 
parallel  passage,  ver.  11,  12,  the  bearing  of  the  transgressions 
and  sins  is  spoken  of,  proves  nothing.  The  servant  of  God 
bears  these  also  in  their  consequences,  in  their  punishments, 
among  which  sickness  and  pains  occupy  a  prominent  place. 
Of  the  bearing  of  outward  sufferings,  ll?TH  Ni#j  occurs  also  in 
Jer.  x.  19.  If  the  words  are  rightly  understood,  then  at  once 
light  falls  upon  the  apostolic  quotation,  in  Matt.  viii.  16,  17, 
which  deserves  the  more  careful  consideration,  as  the  Evange 
list  intentionally  deviates  from  the  Alexandrine  version.  In 
such  an  application  there  is  not  an  external  meaning  given  to 
that,  which  is  to  be  understood  spiritually;  but  when  the  Sa 
viour  healed  the  sick,  He  fulfilled  the  prophecy  in  its  most 
proper  and  obvious  sense.  .  .  .  He  has  not  only  put  away 
our  sicknesses  and  pains,  but  He  has,  as  our  substitute,  taken 
them  upon  him;  He  has  healed  us  by  His  having  Himself  be 
come  sick  in  our  stead."  This,  of  course,  implies,  as  Heng- 
stenberg  goes  on  to  state,  Christ's  personal  appropriation  of 
our  sins,  of  which  His  sufferings  were  the  consequence.  But 
it  implies  also,  that  the  troubles  and  disorders  of  humanity 
were  themselves,  in  a  sense,  laid  upon  Christ;  He  had  to  make 
these  also  His  own;  and  showed  that  He  did  so  by  applying 
His  Almightiness  to  remove  them.  Even  here  there  was  the 
proof  of  an  infinite  condescension,  and  the  indication  of  a  vi 
carious  work. 

In  1  Pet.  ii.  24,  25,  there  is  undoubtedly  a  reference  to  the 
53d  of  Isaiah;  and  the  sin-bearing  of  Jesus  is  expressed  in 
the  very  words  used  by  the  Septungint  in  rendering  the  first 


MATT.  xin.  35;  PS.  LXXVIII.  2.  475 

clause  of  vor.  4.  But  there  is  no  ground,  on  that  account, 
for  supposing  that  Peter  meant  the  words  to  be  understood  as 
expressing  his  view  of  the  passage.  lie  is  merely  unfolding, 
in  language  which  the  thoughts  and  words  of  that  chapter  had 
rendered  current,  the  great  truth,  which  doubtless  formed  the 
centre  of  the  prophet's  representation,  as  well  as  the  main 
theme  of  the  apostle's  teaching. 

V. 

Matt.  xiii.  35;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2. 

It  is  in  connexion  with  the  change  introduced  into  our  Lord's 
method  of  teaching,  when  He  began  to  speak  in  parables,  that 
the  passage  from  Ps.  Ixxviii.  2  is  cited.  He  did  so,  the  Evan 
gelist  states,  "  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by 
the  prophet,  I  will  open  my  mouth  in  parables,  I  will  utter 
things  that  have  been  hidden  from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 
The  stress  is  plainly  meant  to  be  laid  upon  the  first  part  of 
the  passage;  it  was  that,  which  now  more  especially  had  its 
verification  in  the  procedure  of  Christ;  the  hidden  or  enigma 
tical  nature  of  the  things  discoursed  of  was  but  a  consequence, 
that,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  attached  itself  to  the  other. 
Now,  in  considering  the  fitness  of  this  application  of  the  Psalm 
ist's  language,  we  are  first  of  all  met  with  a  source  of  doubt 
and  uncertainty  in  regard  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word 
rendered  parables.  This  in  the  original  is  S#a  ?  mashal;  and 
opinions  have  been,  and  still  are,  divided  on  its  precise  import 
in  certain  applications — some  making  it  bear  mainly  upon  the 
form  and  character  of  the  discourse,  others  upon  its  style  and 
diction.  To  the  former  class  belongs  Hengstenberg,  who  says 
in  his  work  on  Balaam,  on  Num.  xxiii.  7,  "  The  noun  mashal 
originally  means  likeness,  comparison,  and  properly  maintains 
this  sense  always.  When  it  is  used  of  sentences,  proverbs, 
and  songs,  then  it  denotes  these,  not  simply  as  such,  but  only 
in  so  far  as  the  idea  of  likeness,  comparison,  prevails  in  them." 
As  used  by  Balaam,  he  conceives  it  to  have  respect  more  par 
ticularly  to  the  poetic  elevation  in  them,  which  naturally  led 
to  a  considerable  infusion  of  the  figurative  modes  of  concep 
tion,  in  which  poetry  delights  to  indulge.  And  there  are 


476  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

other  portions  of  the  prophetic  Scriptures — such,  for  example, 
as  Isa.  xiv.,  and  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  (com.  ch.  xv.  49,)  to 
which  also  the  word  is  applied — in  respect  to  which  from  the 
play  of  fancy  and  the  large  employment  of  figure  that  appears 
in  them,  we  can  readily  perceive  the  appropriateness  of  a  term 
that  is  indicative  of  images  and  similitudes.  But  when  the 
same  term  is  applied  to  such  didactic  pieces,  as  Ps.  xxxix.  (ver. 
4,)  or  to  such  narrative  discourses,  as  Ps.  Ixxviii.,  which  are 
not  characterized  by  any  flights  of  fancy,  or  by-figurative 
speech,  one  is  at  a  loss  to  see,  how,  if  the  word  always  retains 
the  sense  of  comparison  or  likeness,  it  should  be  applied  to 
compositions  which  seem  to  have  so  little  about  them  of  the 
distinctive  quality. 

It  is  partly  on  this  account,  that  the  other  shade  of  opinion 
respecting  maslial  has  been  adopted,  and  which  would  find  the 
idea  of  similitude  or  likeness,  that  forms  the  root-meaning,  in 
the  parallelism  of  the  sentences.  Thus  Gesenius,  while  he  re 
presents  the  word  as  often  applied  to  parabolical  and  figura 
tive  discourses,  holds  it  to  be  also  employed  of  songs  and  other 
compositions,  "the  particular  verses  of  which  consist  of  two 
hemistichs  of  similar  argument  and  form."  In  this  case  there 
might  be  no  figure,  or  illustrative  style  of  thought  emploj'ed 
in  developing  the  subject  handled;  nothing,  indeed,  marked 
or  peculiar  beyond  the  digesting  of  what  was  uttered  into  a 
series  of  parallelistic  members.  This  view,  however,  appears 
to  give  undue  prominence  to  the  mere  structure  of  the  sen 
tences,  which  is  never  rendered  prominent  in  Scripture  itself, 
and  only  takes,  in  certain  cases,  the  parallelistic  form,  from 
the  requirements  of  the  kind  of  instruction,  or  the  species  of 
discourse,  with  which  it  is  associated. 

The  fault  probably  lies  in  making  the  import  and  bearing 
of  the  word  too  determinate  either  way.  The  sense  put  upon, 
it  by  Lowth,  which  may  be  said  to  include  both  the  shades  of 
opinion  now  mentioned — giving  chief  prominence  to  the  cha 
racteristics  of  the  discourse,  yet  not  altogether  excluding  the 
external  form,  into  which  its  utterances  are  cast — is  perhaps 
the  correcter  mode  of  representation.  He  takes  it  to  be  a 
term  "  expressive  of  the  poetic  style.  Many  interpreters  de- 


MATT.  xin.  35;  PS.  LXXVIII.  2.  477 

signate  it  parable;  a  word  in  some  respects  not  unsuitable, 
but  by  no  means  embracing  the  entire  compass  of  the  Hebrew 
term;  which,  taken  in  its  full  strength,  and  according  to  its 
current  use,  will  be  found  to  signify  a  sententious,  figurative, 
and  elevated  kind  of  discourse."  He  means  one  or  other  of 
these,  as  the  occasion  may  require;  and  in  the  kind  of  dis 
course  he  would  include  also  its  appropriate  style  of  expres 
sion.  When  applied,  therefore,  to  such  a  piece  of  composition 
as  the  78th  Psalm,  in  which  by  a  poetico-historical  rehearsal 
of  the  transactions  of  former  times,  the  inspired  writer  seeks 
to  convey  lessons  of  instruction  for  the  future,  it  may  be  re 
garded  as  calling  attention,  not  so  much  to  the  parallelism  of 
the  sentences, — if  to  that  at  all,  in  a  quite  subordinate  man 
ner — but  chiefly  to  the  underlying  parallelism  of  circumstances 
conceived  as  existing  between  the  Israel  of  former  generations 
and  those  yet  to  come;  and  to  the  profound,  sententious  form 
in  which  the  instruction  inlaid  in  the  one  was  exhibited  for 
the  benefit  of  the  other.  It  was  a  turning  of  history  into  pro 
phecy  ;  for  while  ostensibly  but  rehearsing  the  past,  it  aimed 
at  presenting  in  this  a  mirror  of  the  future. 

Precisely  similar  was  the  object  of  our  Lord's  parables; 
differing  only  in  so  far  as  they  employed  for  the  cover  of  the 
instruction,  not  the  records  of  actual  history,  but  the  ideal 
narratives  of  parabolical  discourse.  This,  indeed,  was  a  form 
of  speech  and  instruction,  that  still  more  distinctly  and  fully 
realized  the  idea  of  the  maslial,  than  the  78th  Psalm — con 
taining,  as  it  did,  more  of  the  poetical  element,  and  more  pal 
pably  basing  its  instruction  on  the  similitude  of  one  class  of 
relations  to  another.  And  as  all  preceding  teachers,  who  in 
any  measure  possessed  and  exercised  the  spirit  of  prophecy, 
were  but  so  many  forerunners  and  types  of  Him,  who  was  to 
be  emphatically  the  teacher  and  prophet  of  His  church,  so, 
what  by  any  one  of  these  had  been  uttered  of  His  calling  and 
His  work,  might,  with  fullest  propriety,  be  applied  to  Christ, 
as  destined  to  find  in  Him  its  truest  realization.  Nor  could 
any  thing  of  ihit  description  be  more  fitly  so  applied,  than 
the  saying  before  us,  which  pointed  to  a  method  of  instruction, 

1  Pnelec.  de  Heb.  Poesi,  4. 


478  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

that  in  one  of  its  forms  was  carried  by  our  Lord  to  the  high 
est  degree  of  perfection,  and  which,  at  once  for  what  it  un 
folded  and  for  what  it  wrapt  in  temporary  concealment,  was 
peculiarly  adapted  to  the  ends  of  His  mission.  The  exterior 
form  conveyed  to  those,  who  heard,  the  image  of  the  truth; 
and  purporting  to  be  but  the  image,  it  naturally  served  both 
to  prompt  their  desires,  and  to  direct  their  inquiries  after  the 
reality. 

VI. 

Matt.  xxi.  42;  Ps.  cxviii.  22,  23. 

The  application,  first  by  our  Lord,  and  afterwards  by  His 
apostles,  of  the  figurative  passage  in  the  118th  Psalm,  re 
specting  the  rejection  of  the  stone  by  men,  and  its  elevation 
by  God  to  the  head  stone  of  the  corner,  to  the  things  which 
were  to  befall  Himself,  proceeds  upon  the  same  relation  of 
Christ  to  Israel,  which  has  been  explained  under  No.  II. 
The  psalm  speaks  in  the  first  instance  of  the  literal  and  col 
lective  Israel;  but  of  this  with  reference  to  its  election  of 
God,  its  higher  calling  and  destiny.  The  experiences,  there 
fore,  to  which  it  relates,  while  they  had  an  earlier  verifica 
tion  in  the  history  of  the  covenant-people,  necessarily  had  a 
higher  development,  a  kind  of  culminating  exemplification 
in  the  person  and  kingdom  of  Christ.  As  a  prophecy,  it  is 
of  that  class  which  may  most  justly  be  said  to  have  "spring 
ing  and  germinant  accomplishment,"  while  "the  height  and 
fulness  of  them"  are  to  be  found  only  in  the  things  which  re 
late  to  the  Messiah.  The  conflict,  which  the  psalm  describes, 
between  the  speaker  and  the  ungodly  adversaries  around  Him, 
was  in  some  form  perpetually  proceeding.  The  purpose  of 
God  to  bless  Israel,  and  to  make  them  the  one  channel  of 
blessing  to  the  world,  was  ever  and  anon  calling  forth  the  un 
godly  opposition  of  the  world — sometimes  within  the  natural 
Israel  itself,  as  in  the  struggles  through  which  David,  the 
chosen  servant  of  God,  had  to  make  his  way  to  the  throne — 
but  more  commonly  with  Israel  as  a  community,  when  set  on 
by  the  jealous  rivalry  and  malice  of  surrounding  nations. 
More  especially  did  this  conflict  come  to  a  height  under  the 
old  relations,  when  the  worldly  power,  headed  by  the  king  of 


MATT.  xxi.  42;  PS.  cxvm.  22,  23.  479 

Babylon,  scattered  the  force  of  the  chosen  people,  and,  in 
boastful  opposition  to  them,  claimed  to  be  recognised  as  the 
ruling  dynasty  among  men.  Israel  was  then  like  a  stone  re 
jected  by  the  builders,  deemed  altogether  unworthy  of  a  place 
in  their  proud  scheme  of  earthly  dominion  and  personal  ag 
grandizement.  But  when  Babylon  herself  fell  from  her  high 
position,  and  Israel  not  only  survived  the  calamities  which 
crushed  their  conquerors  in  the  dust,  but  was  sent  back  with 
honour,  and  the  clear  signs  of  Heaven's  favour,  to  lay  the 
foundation  of  a  new,  and,  ultimately,  a  nobler  destiny  in  their 
native  land,  it  then  strikingly  appeared  how  God's  purpose 
respecting  them  prevailed  over  the  power  and  malice  of  men; 
and  how  the  rejected  stone  was  by  Him  appointed  to  be  the 
head  of  the  corner.  At  such  a  time,  even  thoughtful  persons 
among  the  heathen  were  constrained  to  say,  "  The  Lord  hath 
done  great  things  for  them;"  and  the  covenant-people  them 
selves  naturally  sung  their  song  of  triumph,  and  exclaimed, 
"It  is  the  Lord's  doing,  and  wondrous  in  our  eyes." 

In  all  probability,  the  event  now  referred  to  was  the  histo 
rical  occasion  on  which  Psalm  118th  was  composed  and  origi 
nally  sung;  a  probability  that  is  greatly  strengthened,  and 
rendered  all  but  certain  by  the  recorded  fact,  that  at  the  lay 
ing  of  the  foundation  of  the  second  temple,  the  returned  exiles 
sung  in  responsive  strains,  (such  as  actually  belong  to  this 
psalm,)  and  strains  that  commenced  precisely  as  it  does.  For 
we  are  told,  at  Ezra  iii.  11,  that  they  then  "sang  together  by 
course,  in  praising  and  giving  thanks  unto  the  Lord,  because 
He  is  good,  for  His  mercy  endureth  for  ever  toward  Israel." 
But  the  principles  of  the  Divine  government,  which  then  re 
ceived  such  a  striking  exemplification  in  the  case  of  Israel, 
were  again  to  be  exhibited,  and  in  a  yet  higher  form,  in  the 
personal  history  of  Messiah.  Many  prophecies  had  pointed 
in  this  direction — all,  indeed,  which  spake  of  the  Messiah  as 
executing  His  work,  and  rising  to  the  place  of  pre-eminent 
power  and  glory,  through  a  course  of  trying  experiences  and 
headstrong  opposition.  These,  one  and  all,  betokened  a  con 
trariety  between  the  views  of  men  and  the  purpose  of  God,  in 
respect  to  the  Author  and  the  plan  of  salvation ;  and  never 


480  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

failed  to  make  manifest  the  ultimate  triumph  of  Heaven's 
counsels  over  the  perversity  and  malice  of  the  world.  But 
among  these  prophecies,  there  were  several  which  connected 
the  struggle  and  triumph  of  Messiah  with  substantially  the 
same  idea  as  that  employed  in  Ps.  cxviii.  In  Isaiah,  for  ex 
ample,  ch.  viii.  14,  speaking  of  the  Lord's  more  peculiar  ma 
nifestation  of  Himself,  which  was  to  take  place  in  the  future, 
it  is  said,  "  And  He  shall  be  for  a  sanctuary;  but  for  a  stone 
of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offence  to  both  the  houses  of  Is 
rael."  Again,  at  ch.  xxviii.  16,  with  a  more  special  and 
pointed  reference  to  the  work  of  Christ,  "Therefore,  thus  saith 
the  Lord  God,  Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation  a  stone, 
a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner-stone,  a  sure  foundation:  he 
that  believeth  shall  not  make  haste. 'r  In  Zechariah  also  the 
promised  appearance  of  the  Lord's  Branch — the  Messiah,  as 
the  scion  of  the  house  of  David — is  associated  with  the  erec 
tion  of  a  temple,  of  another  and  a  nobler  kind  than  that  which 
was  in  process  of  erection  by  the  returned  captives,  and  in 
that,  of  course,  Messiah  Himself  was  to  occupy  the  most  pro 
minent  place,  (ch.  vi.  12,  13.)  So  that,  when  in  Ps.  cxviii., 
mention  is  made  of  the  stone  rejected  by  the  builders,  yet  ex 
alted  by  the  Lord  to  be  the  head  of  the  corner,  and  on  that 
very  account  He  is  magnified  as  the  God  of  salvation,  the 
thoughts  of  believers,  even  in  ancient  times,  might  as  readily 
have  been  led  to  think  of  the  future  as  of  the  past.  And  had 
not  a  judicial  blindness  been  on  the  hearts  of  the  people,  when 
our  Lord  asked  them,  "  Have  ye  never  read  in  the  Scriptures, 
The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected  is  become  the  head  of 
the  corner?"  they  would  have  seen,  that  to  continue  their  op 
position  after  all  the  mighty  works  that  had  showed  themselves 
forth  in  Him,  was  but  to  enact  anew,  and  with  infinitely  less 
excuse,  the  part  which  of  old  the  heathen  had  acted  toward 
Israel,  or  which  the  Sauline  party  had  acted  toward  David. 
The  same  controversy  was  pending  as  of  old,  and  the  same 
disastrous  results  must  inevitably  befall  those  who  set  them 
selves  against  the  manifested  purpose  of  God. 

It  thus  appears,  that  while  the  passage  had  a  primary  re 
spect  to  Israel,  it  from  the  first  included  the  Divine  purpose, 


MATT.  xxn.  31,  32;  EX.  in.  6.  481 

with  -which  Israel  was  more  peculiarly  identified — their  elec 
tion  of  God  to  be  the  instrument  and  channel  of  blessing  to 
the  world,  and  as  such  to  have  the  chief  place  among  men. 
But  as  this  purpose  was  to  find  its  proper  accomplishment  in 
Christ,  so  to  apply  the  passage  personally  to  Him  Was  in  per 
fect  accordance  with  its  original  import  and  design. 

YIT. 

Matt.  xxii.  31,  32;  Ex.  iii.  6. 

This  is  one  of  the  few  passages  in  which  it  has  sometimes 
been  alleged  our  Lord  occasionally  fell  in  with  the  cabalistic 
mode  of  handling  Scripture,  which  was  current  among  the 
Rabbinical  Jews.  It  is  only,  however,  with  the  more  extreme 
and  reckless  section  of  the  Rationalists  that  this  allegation 
is  found ;  for,  however  often  interpreters  of  Rationalistic  ten 
dencies  have  failed  to  bring  out  the  full  force  of  our  Lord's 
reasoning,  they  have  commonly  admitted  that  the  argument 
He  draws  is  based  on  a  solid  foundation ;  and  even  Paulus, 
in  the  last  edition  of  his  Commentary  on  the  Synoptical  Gos 
pels,  says,  "Jesus  reasons  here  in  a  subtle  manner,  yet  by  no 
means  so  that  there  did  not  really  lie  in  the  premises  what  He 
deduces  from  them."  It  is  not  undeserving  of  notice,  that, 
amid  all  the  sayings  which  have  been  gathered  out  of  ancient 
Jewish  writings,  for  the  purpose  of  elucidating  New  Testa 
ment  Scripture,  none  has  been  found  that  bears  any  proper 
resemblance  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  before  us.  In  a  compara 
tively  modern  Jewish  writer,  the  words  themselves,  and  the 
reference  of  Christ,  have  been  substantially  appropriated; 
the  passage  is  quoted  by  Schb'ttgen,  on  this  part  of  Matthew's 
Gospel.  It  is  from  R.  Menasse  Ben  Israel  de  Resur.,  p.  68: 
"When  the  Lord  first  appeared  to  Moses,  he  is  reported  to 
have  said,  I  am  the  God  of  your  fathers,  the  God  of  Abra 
ham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  the  God  of  Jacob.  But  God  is  not 
the  God  of  the  dead,  because  the  dead  are  not;  but  of  the 
living,  because  the  living  exist.  On  that  ground,  therefore, 
it  is  rightly  inferred  that,  in  respect  to  the  soul,  the  patri 
archs  still  live."  Rabbinical  men  could  in  some  measure 
perceive  the  force  of  the  argument,  when  it  was  formed  to 
41 


482  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

their  hand,  but  they  wanted  depth  and  discernment  of  spirit 
to  discover  it  for  themselves.  Indeed,  the  argument  is  per 
fectly  simple,  and  must  appear  so  to  all,  the  moment  they  ap 
prehend  what  is  implied  in  the  relationship  which  God,  as 
God,  admitted  to  subsist  between  Himself  and  those  patri 
archs.  He  owns  himself  their  God ;  their  God  still,  though 
for  hundreds  of  years  their  bodies  had  been  mouldering  in  the 
cave  of  Marnre.  In  His  account  they  were  yet  alive;  and 
He,  being  their  God,  it  necessarily  behooved  Him  to  do  for 
them  whatever  a  God  is  able  to  perform  on  their  behalf — just 
as  a  father  is  bound  to  do  for  his  children  whatever  he  really 
can  to  promote  their  welfare.  But  cannot  God — He  who  at 
first  breathed  into  those  patriarchs  the  breath  of  life,  again 
raise  them  from  the  dust  of  death,  and  clothe  them  with 
strength  and  beauty?  Doubtless  He  can;  and  because  He 
can,  He  will — nay,  He  must,  since  He  has  Himself  assumed 
the  name,  and  thereby  pledged  Himself  to  make  good  all  that 
it  imports.  He  who  would  have  been  ashamed  to  be  called 
their  God,  if  He  had  not  provided  for  them  a  city,  would 
much  more  have  been  ashamed  so  to  call  Himself,  if  their  bo 
dies,  a  part  of  their  very  natures,  were  left  for  ever  as  a  prey 
to  corruption. 

VIII. 

Matt,  xxvii.  9,  10;  Zech.  xi.  13. 

There  are  two  points  that  require  explanation,  in  the  use 
that  is  made  here  of  the  words  of  ancient  prophecy;  one  more 
general,  and  another  more  specific.  The  first  has  respect  to 
the  propriety  of  understanding  the  Messiah  as  the  person  who 
was  to  be  so  unworthily  treated,  and  rated  at  the  mean  price 
of  thirty  pieces  of  silver — the  price  of  a  slave.  This  admits 
of  a  full  justification;  for,  in  the  preceding  context,  the  sub 
ject  of  discourse  plainly  is  about  the  false  shepherds,  on  the 
one  side,  and  the  true  Shepherd  on  the  other.  Reproving 
and  judging  the  former,  the  Lord  Himself,  whom  the  prophet 
personates,  undertakes  the  office,  and  in  doing  so,  feeds  the 
misled  and  injured  flock,  and  cuts  off  those  who  had  impove 
rished  and  oppressed  them.  But,  so  far  from  meeting  with  a 


MATT.  xxvn.  9,  10;  ZECH.  XL  13.  483 

kind  reception  and  grateful  acknowledgment  from  those 
whose  cause  he  undertook,  "  their  souls  rebelled  against  him," 
and  he  resolved  on  withdrawing  in  disgust;  but  demanded  of 
them  a  reward  for  his  services  in  their  behalf.  This,  they 
are  represented  as  answering,  by  weighing  out  the  contempt 
uous  sum  of  thirty  pieces  of  silver:  a  transaction  which  evi 
dently  bespoke  the  light  estimation  in  which  they  held  him, 
and  the  work  he  had  performed  amongst  them.  Hence  they 
are  again  given  up  to  bad  shepherds,  and  disorder  and  trou 
ble  rush  in  as  before. 

Now,  since  the  Lord  Himself  is  the  Good  Shepherd  spoken 
of,  and  the  transaction  about  the  rating,  carries  a  peculiarly 
personal  aspect,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  understand  it  other 
wise  than  as  referring  to  some  manifestation  of  Godhead  more 
objective  and  realistic  than  any  that  had  taken  place  in  ancient 
times.  The  people,  under  the  relations  of  the  Old  Covenant, 
might  be  represented  as  selling  themselves  (Isa.  lii.  3,)  but  they 
neither  were,  nor  could  fitly  be,  spoken  of  as  selling  the  Lord. 
Such  a  mode  of  representation  pointed  to  another  and  more 
palpable  exhibition  of  Godhead  than  had  hitherto  appeared; 
it  pointed  to  the  appearance  of  the  Divine  Shepherd,  of  whom 
the  earlier  prophets  had  so  often  and  so  distinctly  spoken  (Ps. 
ii.  9,  Ixxii. ;  Isa.  ix.  6,  7;  Jer.  xxiii.  4,  5;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  23.) 
And  when,  in  addition  to  this,  we  look  to  the  particulars  of 
the  account  given  by  the  prophet  of  the  treatment  of  the  shep 
herd,  we  may  justly  say,  with  Hengstenberg,  "The  agreement 
of  prophecy  and  fulfilment  is  so  striking,  that  it  would  force 
itself  upon  us,  although  it  had  been  indicated  by  no  declara 
tion  of  the  New  Testament.  What  could  the  last  and  most 
fearful  expression  of  ingratitude  towards  the  Good  Shepherd 
here  predicted  be,  other  than  the  murderous  plot  by  which 
the  Jews  rewarded  the  pastoral  fidelity  of  Christ,  and  for 
whose  accomplishment  Judas  was  bribed?"  (Christology.) 

The  differences  that  present  themselves  between  the  terms 
of  the  prophecy  and  the  record  of  its  fulfilment,  are  such 
merely  as  respect  the  form,  not  the  reality  of  things.  In  the 
prophecy,  the  shepherd  demands  the  payment  of  a  sum,  and 
that  in  the  shape  of  a  reward  for  his  services ;  but  this  is  only 


484  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

for  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  more  distinctly  the  fact  that 
he  had  appeared  to  them  in  the  character  of  one  doing  them 
important  service,  and  that  when  they  came  formally  to  sur 
render  their  interest  in  him,  the  time  and  circumstances  of 
the  transaction  might  fairly  be  taken  as  an  evidence  of  the 
value  they  set  upon  him.  In  a  word,  it  would  inevitably  and 
justly  be  regarded  as  a  proof  of  blackest  ingratitude  toward 
him,  and  senseless  disregard  of  their  own  highest  interests. 
Not  only  so,  but  as  Divine  Providence  ordered  it  so  that 
the  ministers  of  the  temple  paid  the  price,  and  the  price  was 
again  taken  back  and  thrown  down  in  the  temple ;  so  in  reality 
all  came  to  be,  in  a  manner,  transacted  before  the  Lord ;  it 
was  done  as  under  His  immediate  eyesight.  As  for  the  com 
mand  in  the  prophecy  to  cast  the  price  to  the  potter,  it  was 
but  a  strong  form  of  the  future  (as  in  Isa.  vi.  9,  noticed  under 
Matt.  xiii.  14,)  and  merely  denoted  the  certainty  with  which 
the  event  should  come  to  pass. 

But  another  point  here  calls  for  consideration,  of  a  some 
what  more  special  kind;  viz.  why  should  the  price  have  been 
so  explicitly  adjudged  to  the  potter?  This  seems  to  imply, 
that  somewhere  already  mention  had  been  made  of  a  potter, 
in  such  a  connexion,  as  rendered  the  destination  of  this  money 
to  the  same  quarter  a  natural  and  proper  thing.  The  prophecy 
here,  therefore,  must  lean  on  some  earlier  portion  of  Scrip 
ture,  which  it  either  resumes,  or  takes  for  granted  as  known 
and  understood.  Now,  it  is  only  in  Jeremiah  that  we  find 
anything  of  that  description.  There,  but  there  alone  is  mention 
made  of  the  potter,  in  a  way  that  is  fitted  to  throw  light  on 
the  passage  under  consideration.  In  ch.  xviii.  2,  the  word  of 
the  Lord  comes  to  Jeremiah,  saying,  "Arise,  and  go  down  to 
the  potter's  house,  and  there  will  I  cause  thee  to  hear  My 
words."  From  the  use  of  the  definite  article,  the  potter,  we 
are  naturally  led  to  think  of  some  one  being  meant,  who  had 
a  well-known  and  recognised  place  in  connexion  with  the 
temple ;  and  from  the  prophet  being  ordered  to  go  down  to 
him,  we  are  not  less  naturally  led  to  think  of  his  workshop  as 
being  situated  in  a  lower  place,  probably  in  the  valley  that 
lay  adjacent  to  the  temple.  This,  however,  is  rendered  certain 


MATT,  xxvir.  9, 10;  ZECH.  xi.  13.  485 

in  ch.  xix.  2,  -where,  after  being  commanded  to  get  a  potter's 
earthen  bottle,  he  was  instructed  to  proceed,  in  company  with 
the  priests  and  elders  of  the  people,  "into  the  valley  of  the 
son  of  Hinnom,"  and  proclaim  certain  words.     This  valley 
had  first  been  the  scene  of  frightful  abominations,  when  idola 
try  was  at  its  height  in  Jerusalem ;  and  afterwards,  to  mark 
his  abhorrence  of  these,  Josiah  had  polluted  the  place,  by 
throwing  into  it  carcasses  and  bones — into  that  part  of  it  more 
especially,  which  was  called  Tophet,  and  in  which  children 
had  been  made  to  pass  through  the  fire  to  Moloch  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  10;  comp.  Jer.  vii.  31.)     When  the  prophet,  then,  had 
gone  down  to  the  potter,  he  saw  a  vessel  become  marred  in 
the  potter's  hand;  on  which  the  word  of  the  Lord  came,  in 
timating  that  the  Lord  could  do  the  same  with  the  children  of 
Israel,  and,  on  account  of  their  sins,  might  even  be  expected 
to  do  it.     But  the  second  special  message  was  the  one  recorded 
in  ch.  xix.,  when  the  prophet  was   commanded  to  throw  an 
earthen  vessel  of  the  potter  into  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and 
accompany  the  action  with  these  appalling  words,  "Behold  I 
will  bring  evil  upon  this  place,  the  which  whosoever  heareth, 
his  ears  shall  tingle.     Because  they  have  forsaken  Me,  and 
have    estranged    this  place,   and  have  burned  incenso  in  it 
unto  other  gods,  whom  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  have 
known,  and  have  filled  this  place  with  innocent  blood;  there 
fore  behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  this  place  shall 
no  more  be  called  Tophet,  nor  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hin 
nom,  but  the  valley  of  slaughter.     And  I  will  make  void  the 
counsel  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  in  this  place ;  and  I  will  cause 
them  to  fall  by  the  sword,"  etc.     "Even  so  will  I  break  this 
people  and  this  city,  as  one  breaks  the  vessels  of  a  potter, 
which  cannot  be  made  whole  again,  and  they  shall  bury  in 
Tophet,  till  there  be  no  place  to  bury." 

Now,  when  in  Zechariah  it  was  said,  regarding  the  thirty 
pieces  of  silver,  without  any  farther  explanation,  "  cast  them 
to  the  potter,"  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  he  refers  to  these 
transactions  in  Jeremiah.  And  the  meaning  of  the  appoint 
ment  was  to  this  effect,  Let  these  pieces  of  silver  become,  like 
the  potter  of  Jeremiah  and  his  vessels,  the  symbol  of  the 

41* 


486  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

people's  consummate  guilt  and  impending  doom.  They  are  the 
price  of  innocent  blood — blood  that  must  still  more  surely 
draw  down  the  vengeance  of  Heaven,  than  that  which  was  of 
old  shed  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom;  let  them,  therefore,  be 
identified  with  the  potter's  field,  the  place  emphatically  of 
pollution  and  crime,  as  a  sign  and  warning  to  all,  that  the 
former  desolations  are  ready  to  come  back  again.  Such  was 
the  natural  import  of  the  prediction ;  and  it  affords  by  far  the 
most  fitting  explanation  of  the  apparent  anomaly  in  the  refe 
rence  of  the  Evangelist,  who,  when  quoting  a  passage  of  Zecha 
riah,  ascribes  it  to  Jeremiah.  Many  suppositions  have  been 
made  to  account  for  this,  such  as,  that  there  may  have  been. 
a  lost  passage  in  the  writings  of  Jeremiah  to  the  same  effect — 
that  the  portion  of  Zeehariah's  writings  quoted  from  may 
really  have  belonged  to  Jeremiah — that  the  Evangelist's  me 
mory  may  have  failed  him,  etc.  The  real  reason,  however,  is, 
that  the  Evangelist  had  in  his  eye  the  inseparable  connexion 
between  the  prediction  in  Zechariah  and  the  earlier  announce 
ments  in  Jeremiah;  that  he  regarded  the  one  only  as  a  later 
and  more  specific  application  of  the  other;  and  that  as  he 
wished  the  people  to  consider  the  denunciations  of  guilt  and 
judgment  most  graphically  portrayed  in  the  original  prophecy, 
so  he  couples  the  prophecy  with  the  name  of  the  earlier  rather 
than  of  the  later  prophet.  This  view,  which  was  first  dis 
tinctly  propounded  by  Grotius,  who  says,  Cum  autem  hoc 
dictum  Jeremiae  per  Sach.  repetitum  hie  recitat  Mat.,  simul 
ostendit  tacite,  eas  poenas  imminere  Judseis,  quas  iidem  pro- 
phetse  olini  sui  temporis  hominibus  praedixerant,  has  been 
more  fully  vindicated  and  established  by  Hengstenberg,  in  his 
Christology,  on  Zechariah.  He  justly  says,  "  Matthew  might, 
indeed,  have  cited  both  prophets.  But  such  prolixity  in  cita 
tion  is  entirely  contrary  to  the  custom  of  the  authors  of  tho 
New  Testament;  which  may  be  explained  by  a  twofold  reason. 
They  presuppose  their  readers  to  possess  an  accurate  know 
ledge  of  Scripture;  and  then  the  human  instrument  was  kept 
far  behind  the  Divine  Author,  the  Spirit  of  God  and  of  Christ, 
who  spake  in  all  the  prophets  in  the  same  manner.  Very 
frequently,  therefore,  the  human  author  is  not  mentioned  at 


MATT,  xxvir.  9,  10;  ZECH.  xi.  13.  487 

all;  they  content  themselves  with  such  forms  of  citation  as 
"the  Scripture  saith,"  "according  as  it  has  been  written," 
"for  it  is  written,"  "as  saith  the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc. 

The  explanation  of  Hofmann,  in  his  Weissagung  und  Er- 
fullung,  differs  only  in  some  subordinate  points.  He  also 
thinks,  that  the  Evangelist  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  attri 
buted  to  Jeremiah  a  passage  of  Zechariah,  as  if  by  mistake ; 
especially  as  he  has  taken  the  chief  circumstance,  with  which 
the  citation  is  formally  connected,  not  from  Zechariah  but 
from  Jeremiah — that,  namely,  which  respects  the  purchase  of 
the  potter's  field,  Hofmann,  however,  would  confine  the  refe 
rence  to  Jeremiah  to  the  xviii.  ch.,  making  no  account  of  ch. 
xix. ;  and  would  regard  the  link  of  connexion  between  the 
passage  in  Zechariah  and  that  of  Jeremiah,  as  consisting  sim 
ply  in  this — that  the  shepherd  in  Zechariah  treats  the  temple- 
court  as  a  clay-pit,  and  under  the  conviction,  that  this  was 
destined  soon  to  become  a  clay-pit,  casts  down  in  that  holy 
place  the  money  that  was  to  be  given  to  the  potter  as  a 
worker  in  clay.  On  which  account  a  curse  is  pronounced 
upon  the  place  by  the  prophet,  as  had  been  done  by  Jere 
miah;  and  hence  the  combination  of  the  two  passages  toge 
ther  by  the  Evangelist.  The  explanation  has  somewhat  of  a 
recondite  and  artificial  appearance;  and  the  other  seems 
simpler. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  also,  that  the  throwing  together 
in  the  way  now  supposed  of  two  passages  of  Old  Testament 
Scripture,  is  nothing  absolutely  singular.  We  have  already  had 
an  example  of  it  at  ch.  xxi.  4,  5,  where  a  portion  of  Isa.  Ixii. 
11,  is  conjoined  with  Zech.  ix.  9,  while  the  Evangelist  simply 
introduces  the  words  as  having  been  spoken  by  the  prophet. 
In  Rom.  ix.  33,  also,  two  prophecies  of  Isaiah  are  thrown  to 
gether  and  treated  as  if  they  formed  a  continuous  utterance. 
But  the  most  striking  example,  next  to  the  one  under  consi 
deration,  is  at  Mark  i.  2,  3,  where,  according  to  the  correct 
text,  the  Evangelist  says,  "As  it  is  written  in  Esaias  the 
prophet,  Behold  I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face,  who 
shall  prepare  thy  way.  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wil 
derness,"  etc.  Here,  the  two  prophecies  of  Malachi  and 


488  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

Isaiah  are  coupled  together,  and  cited  only  in  connexion  with 
the  name  of  Isaiah;  partly,  doubtless,  because  he  was  both 
the  earlier  and  the  greater  prophet,  and,  partly,  because  the 
prophecy  in  Malachi  was  but  the  resumption  of  that  in  Isaiah, 
only  cast  into  a  somewhat  more  personal  and  specific  form. 
It  is  remarkable,  too,  and  lends  further  confirmation  to  the 
view  now  given,  that  while  there  are  numerous  references  to 
Malachi  and  Zechariah  in  the  New  Testament,  the  prophets 
themselves  are  never  named.     Zechariah  is  quoted  four  times 
besides  the  occasion  before  us — Matt.  xxi.  5,  xxvi.  31;  John 
xii.  14,  xix.  37,  and  always  with  a  general  formula.     Hosea 
alone  of  the  minor  prophets,  and  he  but  once,  is  expressly 
mentioned  (Rom.  ix.  25  ;)  for,  it  seems  very  doubtful  if  the 
reference  in  Acts  ii.  16  to  the  prophet  Joel  should  go  further 
than  simply,  "But  this  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the  pro 
phet."      The  minor  prophets  were  usually  regarded  as  a  single 
book  of  prophecies  by  the  Jews,  somewhat  of  the  nature  of  an 
appendage  to  the  larger  prophetical  books.     Hosea  stood  at 
the  head  of   the  list,  and    it  was  natural  to  name  him,  but 
scarcely  less  natural  to  refer  to  the  others  in  a  more  general 
manner ;  or  even,  when  the  passage  taken  from  any  of  them 
coincided  in  substance  with  what  had  been  uttered  by  one  of 
the    greater  prophets,  to  bring  out  its  connexion  with    the 
more  prominent  name.     These  things  undoubtedly  indicate 
a  peculiar  mode  of  contemplation  in  respect  to  the  point  at 
issue,  and  lend  confirmation  to  the  explanations  given  above. 


John  xix.  36;  Ex.  xii.  46. 

The  prescription  regarding  the  Passover  Lamb,  that  a  bone 
of  it  should  not  be  broken,  is  applied  by  the  Evangelist  to  our 
Lord,  as  a  Scripture  that  required  to  find  its  correspondence, 
or  meet  with  its  verification  in  His  person.  The  application 
proceeds,  of  course,  on  the  ground  of  a  typical  relationship 
between  that  sacrificial  lamb  and  Christ,  as  the  author  of  re 
demption  to  His  people;  on  account  of  which  it  is  said  by  the 
apostle,  "For  also  our  Passover,  Christ,  was  sacrificed"  (1 
Cor.  v.  7:)  and  our  Lord  Himself,  pointing  to  the  same  rela- 


JOHN  xix.  36;  EX.  xn.  46.  489 

tionship,  said,  at  the  celebration  of  the  last  Passover  he  held 
with  His  disciples,  "With  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat  this 
Passover  with  you  before  I  suffer ;  for  I  say  unto  you,  I  will 
not  any  more  eat  thereof,  until  it  be  fulfilled  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  "  (Luke  xxii.  15,  16.)  It  will  at  once  be  admitted 
by  all,  who  believe  in  the  fact  of  this  relationship,  that  it  in 
volved  the  necessity  of  Christ's  sacrificial  death,  as  the  means 
whereby  the  stroke  of  deserved  judgment  was  to  be  averted 
from  their  heads.  And  not  only  that,  but  that  this  new  pass- 
over-sacrifice  was  to  hold  relatively  the  same  place  as  the 
old — was  to  be  the  formation  of  a  new  era  for  the  Church, 
the  redemptive  act,  that  provided  for  her  members'  life  and 
blessing.  But  persons  may  admit  this,  without  perceiving 
any  necessary  connexion  between  the  preservation  of  our 
Lord's  limbs  from  the  violence  done  to  those  crucified  beside 
Him,  and  the  order  to  break  no  bone  of  the  Paschal  Lamb. 
For,  why,  it  may  be  asked,  this  specific  formal  agreement — 
while  so  many  others  were  wanting?  The  lamb,  for  example, 
was  to  die,  by  having  its  blood  shed  with  a  knife,  which  was 
afterwards  to  be  poured  out  or  sprinkled;  the  flesh  of  it  also 
was  to  be  roasted  entire,  and  eaten  the  very  night  it  was  slain. 
These  were  prescriptions  respecting  the  mode  of  treating  the 
lamb,  as  well  as  that  about  the  bones,  while  yet  we  see  no 
formal  agreement  with  them  in  the  personal  history  of  Christ. 
Why,  then,  should  there  have  been  such  an  agreement  in  re 
gard  to  this  one  particular?  The  precise  relation  of  things 
may  be  thus  stated: — The  ordinance  of  the  Passover  had  this 
as  a  distinctive  feature  in  its  institution,  that  the  lamb,  which 
had  been  the  provisional  means  of  deliverance  from  impend 
ing  destruction,  the  source,  in  a  sense,  of  material  life,  should 
also  be  the  food  and  support  of  the  life  so  preserved ;  it  must 
be  eaten,  and  eaten  entire,  by  those  for  whom  it  had  provided 
a  ransom ;  and  for  this  end  it  had  to  be  roasted,  without  suf 
fering  mutilation.  Now  in  this,  the  ordinance  was  to  find  its 
counterpart  in  the  new  dispensation,  by  the  appropriation  of 
Christ  for  strength  and  nourishment,  on  the  part  of  all,  who 
should  be  saved  by  his  death;  they  must  continue  to  live  upon 
Him,  and  can  only  do  so  by  making  His  fulness  of  life  and 


490  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

blessing  their  own.  And  to  give,  even  outwardly,  a  sign  of 
this  unbroken  wholeness  of  Christ — of  the  necessity  of  it,  and 
of  the  believer's  fellowship  with  it,  to  salvation — the  Lord  in 
terfered  by  a  singular  act  of  providence,  to  preserve  the  body 
of  the  crucified  intact.  The  type,  might,  indeed,  without  this 
external  conformity  have  been  substantially  verified;  but  it 
was  given  as  a  special  token  or  seal  from  the  hand  of  God, 
to  authenticate  the  antitype,  and  to  point  men's  thoughts  back 
to  the  ordinance,  which  had  been  framed  so  many  ages  before 
in  anticipation  of  the  reality.  The  fulfilment  here,  therefore, 
belongs  to  the  same  class  as  those  referred  to  in  No.  II.;  a 
fulfilment  that  manifested  an  external  correspondence,  fitted 
to  help  an  imperfect  discernment,  or  a  feeble  faith,  but  one 
that,  at  the  same  time,  bespoke  a  more  inward  and  deeper 
correspondence  lying  beneath.  It  was,  so  to  speak,  but  the 
outer  shell  of  the  antitypical  development,  which  is  noticed  by 
the  Evangelist;  yet  such,  that  through  it  discerning  minds 
might  discover  the  rich  kernel  of  spiritual  and  abiding  truth, 
of  which  it  was  the  index. 

X. 

John  xix.  37 ;  Zech.  xii.  10. 

We  have  here  another  example  of  that  kind  of  fulfilment 
of  ancient  Scripture,  which  has  been  treated  of  in  the  last 
number — in  something  outward  and  corporeal  a  verification 
of  a  word,  which  reached  much  farther  and  deeper.  Here, 
however,  it  is  connected,  not  with  a  typical  transaction  of 
former  times,  but  with  an  emblematic  announcement  of  ancient 
prophecy.  Describing  prospectively  the  repentance  of  the 
people,  whose  blindness  and  folly  had  alienated  them  from 
the  Lord,  and  involved  them  in  misery  and  ruin,  the  Prophet 
Zechariah  represents  them  as  looking  to  Him  whom  they  had 
pierced,  and  mourning.  It  was,  undoubtedly,  a  spiritual 
grief — a  grief  on  account  of  sin,  of  which  the  prophet  spake, 
and  in  connexion  with  that,  a  spiritual  direction  of  the  eye  to 
their  offended  Lord;  for  the  whole  is  described  as  the  conse 
quence  of  a  spirit  of  grace  and  supplication  being  poured  out 
upon  their  souls.  In  such  a  case  the  piercing,  which  more 


ACTS  i.  20;  PS.  LXIX.  25,  cix.  8.  491 

especially  caused  the  mourning,  must  also  have  been  of  a  like 
profound  and  spiritual  kind;  it  could  be  nothing  less  than  the 
heart-grief  experienced  by  the  Shepherd  of  Israel  on  account 
of  the  wrongs  and  indignities  He  had  received  from  His  peo 
ple.  But  the  Evangelist  John,  who  had  a  peculiar  eye  for 
the  symbolical,  and  was  ever  seeing  the  spiritual  imaged  in 
the  visible,  descried  in  the  piercing  of  our  Lord's  side  by  the 
soldier's  spear  a  sign  of  that  other  piercing.  It  was  an  in 
dignity  that  formed,  indeed,  so  far  as  it  went,  a  proper  fulfil 
ment  of  the  prophetic  word,  yet  still  one  that  touched  the 
surface  only,  of  its  dark  meaning,  and  was  important,  more 
for  what  it  suggested  than  for  what  it  actually  embodied. — 
(Comp.  John  xii.  32,  33.) 

XI. 

Acts  i.  20;  Ps.  Ixix.  25,  cix.  8. 

The  manner  in  which  St.  Peter  brought  these  passages  from 
the  Psalms  to  bear  on  the  case  of  Judas,  is  such  as  to  leave 
no  doubt  that  they  had  in  this  their  most  legitimate  and 
proper  application.  He  prefaced  the  use  made  of  them  with 
the  words,  "Men  and  brethren,  this  Scripture  must  needs 
have  been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  mouth  of 
David,  spoke  before  concerning  Judas."  There  was  a  Divine 
necessity  in  the  case;  Judas  was  so  definitely  in  the  mind  of 
the  inspiring  Spirit,  that  the  things  written  must  have  their 
accomplishment  in  the  fate  that  befell  him.  And  when  we 
reflect,  that  this  was  the  very  first  application  of  a  prophetic 
Scripture  by  any  of  the  Apostles  after  they  had  been  instruct 
ed  by  Jesus  respecting  all  things  that  were  written  of  Him 
"in  the  law  of  Moses,  in  the  prophets,  in  the  Psalms"  (Luke 
xxiv.  44,)  we  cannot  doubt  that  it  was  made  on  the  express 
warrant  and  authority  of  their  Master.  It  is  chiefly  valuable, 
on  account  of  the  insight  it  affords  into  the  position  and  cha 
racter  of  Judas.  For,  as  the  hostile  party  portrayed  in  Ps. 
Ixix.  and  cix.,  sometimes  as  an  individual,  sometimes  as  a 
band  of  adversaries,  stands  arrayed  in  the  darkest  features, 
alike  of  guilt  and  of  condemnation — as  in  the  delineation 
given  we  see  ingratitude  of  the  blackest  dye,  malice  and  wick- 


492  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

edness  taking  entire  possession  of  the  soul,  and  rendering  it 
incapable  of  yielding  to  the  impressions  of  love  and  holiness, 
capable  only  of  rushing  headlong  to  destruction — so  we  are 
taught  by  the  personal  application  of  the  words  to  Judas 
(what  the  evangelical  history  itself  teaches,)  that  it  was  no  ac 
cidental  circumstance,  his  having  found  a  place  among  the 
number  of  the  apostles,  and  no  misapprehension  merely,  or 
precipitancy  of  judgment,  (as  some  would  have  it,)  which  led 
him  to  take  the  part  he  did,  in  betraying  the  Son  of  Man.  Ju 
das,  within  the  bosom  of  the  twelve,  did  what  his  countrymen 
generally  did,  in  respect  to  the  world  at  large — betrayed  the 
Lord  of  glory  to  His  enemies.  He  was,  therefore,  the  uncon 
scious  representative  and  leader  of  these  enemies — the  imper 
sonation  of  those  elements  of  evil,  which  rendered  them  what 
they  ultimately  became  to  Christ,  and  the  cause  of  the  gospel. 
He  was  but  accidentally  separated  from  them — fundamentally 
and  in  spirit  he  was  one  with  them.  Hence,  it  was  quite  le 
gitimate  to  take  what  is  written  in  Ps.  Ixix.  25,  of  the  adver 
saries  as  a  body,  and  apply  it,  as  St.  Peter  does,  individually 
to  Judas: — what  was  to  find  its  realization  in  the  unbelieving 
portion  generally  of  the  Jewish  people,  was,  in  a  concentrated 
form,  to  take  effect  upon  him,  who,  with  peculiar  aggravations, 
acted  the  treacherous  part,  which  they  also  pursued.  In  him, 
as  an  individual,  their  guilt  and  punishment  were  alike  re 
flected — as  the  one  first,  by  his  own  perversity,  so  of  necessity 
the  other,  by  Divine  ordination.  Happy,  had  they  but  read 
in  time  the  sign  it  was  intended  to  afford  of  their  inevitable 
doom!  In  that  case,  even  the  melancholy  fate  of  the  son  of 
perdition  might  have  proved  a  beacon,  to  warn  them  away 
from  that  coming  wrath,  which  laid  their  habitations  desolate 
like  his,  and  drove  them  from  the  office  they  had  been  called 
to  fill,  as  the  channels  of  blessing  to  mankind. 

XII. 

Acts  xiii.  83;  Ps.  ii.  7.     Acts  xiii.  84;  Isa.  Iv.  3. 
The  peculiarity  in  the  use  of  these  passages  of  Old  Testa 
ment  Scripture  lies  in  their  being  placed  in  such  immediate 
connexion  with   the   resurrection    of   Christ.     It   has   been 


ACTS  xin.  33;  PS.  n.  7.    ACTS  xni.  34;  ISA.  LV.  3.    493 

doubted  by  some,  whether  in  ver.  33  the  apostle  is  speaking 
directly  and  specially  of  the  resurrection:  they  would  rather 
regard  the  raising  up  (auacrrr^a^)  there  mentioned  as  pointing 
to  the  natural  birth  of  our  Lord,  or  His  official  appointment 
as  Messiah.  This  is  argued  on  the  ground,  more  especially, 
that  the  word  avacr.  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  raising  up 
again;  that  it  occurs,  for  example,  at  ch.  iii.  22,  of  the  sim 
ple  existence  and  manifestation  of  Jesus  as  the  great  pro 
phet  like  unto  Moses ;  and  that  when  the  raising  up  has  respect 
to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  it  is  coupled  with  Ix  vsxp&y — as 
in  the  very  next  verse  to  the  one  under  consideration.  These 
grounds  are  urged,  for  example,  by  Treffry,  on  the  Eternal 
iSonship,  p.  299,  who  therefore  thinks,  that  the  apostle  "be 
gins  to  speak  of  the  resurrection  only  in  ver.  34,"  and  that 
the  raising  up  of  Jesus  mentioned  in  ver.  33,  was  His  being 
brought  forth,  not  from  the  dead,  but  from  the  seed  of  David, 
as  at  ver.  23. 

This  view  might  have  been  held  with  some  appearance  of 
reason,  if  the  apostle  in  his  address  had  not  distinctly  intro 
duced  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  in  the  immediately  preceding 
context.  But  this  he  has  done;  he  has  even  brought  it  pro 
minently  out,  as  the  point,  on  which  all,  in  a  manner,  hung 
for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  in  support  of  which  the 
apostolic  testimony  was  more  peculiarly  given.  "  God  raised 
Him  from  the  dead,"  he  had  said,  "and  He  was  seen  many 
days  of  them  which  came  up  with  Him  from  Galilee  to  Jeru 
salem,  who  are  his  witnesses  unto  the  people.  And  we  de 
clare  unto  you,"  he  continues,  "glad  tidings,  how  that  the 
promise  which  was  made  unto  the  fathers,  the  same  has  God 
fulfilled  unto  us  their  children,  having  raised  up  Jesus;  as  it 
is  also  written  in  the  first  Psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
have  I  begotten  Thee."  It  were,  perhaps,  wrong  to  say,  that 
this  passage  in  the  Psalm  is  brought  in  simply  and  exclusively 
with  reference  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ;  but  the  con 
nexion  seerns  plainly  to  indicate,  that  both  in  that,  and  in  the 
raising  up  of  Jesus,  it  is  to  the  resurrection  that  allusion  is 
more  peculiarly  made.  All,  according  to  the  apostle's  view, 
seemed  to  point  to,  and  find  its  consummation  in,  the  risen 
42 


494  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

Saviour;  this  realized  the  hopes  nourished  hy  ancient  pro 
phecy,  and  proved  Jesus  to  be  emphatically  the  Son  of  God. 
It  is  to  be  remarked,  also,  that  this  was  but  the  first  of  a  se 
ries  of  like  testimonies  from  St.  Paul:  above  all  the  apostles, 
he  delights  to  connect  the  promise  of  God  and  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Jesus  with  the  resurrection.  When  standing  on  his 
trial  before  Felix,  he  put  the  whole  question,  as  between  him 
self  and  his  accusers,  thus:  "I  believe  all  things,  which  are 
•written  in  the  law  and  in  the  prophets,  and  have  hope  to 
ward  God,  which  they  themselves  also  allow,  that  there  shall 
be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust," 
(Acts  xxiv.  14, 15.)  And  again,  when  pleading  before  Agrippa, 
he  represented  the  hope  that  God  would  raise  the  dead,  as  at 
once  "the  promise  made  of  God  unto  the  fathers,  and  that 
for  which  he  was  accused  of  the  Jews,"  (Acts  xxvi.  6,  7.) 
"If  Christ  has  not  risen,"  he  elsewhere  wrote,  "your  faith 
is  vain,  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins,"  (1  Cor.  xv.  17.)  It  was 
precisely  by  His  resurrection,  that  Christ  was  "  declared  to 
be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,"  (Rom.  i.  4;)  and  by  virtue 
also  of  a  fellowship  in  the  power  of  His  resurrection,  that  sin 
ners  are  quickened  to  newness  of  life,  and  constituted  sons  of 
God:  Himself  first,  by  reason  of  His  resurrection,  the  first- 
begotten  from  the  dead,  and  then,  the  life— the  causal  life — 
to  many,  who  were  dead  in  sin,  (Rom.  viii.  29;  Col.  i.  18,  iii. 
1-4,  etc.) 

It  was  probably  on  account  of  Christ's  having  appeared  to 
Paul  as  the  risen  Saviour,  and  wrought  thereby  such  a  mar 
vellous  change  on  his  condition  and  prospects,  that  his  thoughts 
took  so  strongly  this  direction.  Not,  however,  as  if  there 
were  anything  properly  singular  in  such  a  mode  of  representa 
tion — for  the  same  substantially  is  found  in  the  discourses  of 
Christ,  and  the  writings  of  the  other  apostles;  but  in  those  of 
Paul  it  assumed  a  more  remarkable  prominence.  It  proceeds 
on  the  contemplation  of  Christ's  work  as  the  actual  restora 
tion  of  man  from  the  curse  of  death,  which  came  in  by  sin. 
The  promise  of  such  a  icstoration  was  the  grand  hope  of  the 
fdllen,  for  which  the  children  of  faith  were  ever  waiting  and 
longing.  And  Christ,  by  His  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and 


ROM.  i.  17;  HAB.  ir.  4.  495 

ascension  to  the  heavenly  places,  actually  brings  in  the  hope; 
now  at  length  it  passes  into  a  living  reality ;  and  He,  who 
prevails  thus  to  bring  life  out  of  death,  and  enter  in  the  name 
of  His  elect  on  the  heirship  of  immortality,  is  found,  by  the 
very  act,  to  be,  what  He  was  long  ago  declared,  God's  pecu 
liar  Son — for  He  could  have  done  it  only  by  having  life  in 
Himself,  even  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself. 

Such  is  the  ground  of  the  apostle's  application  of  the  word 
in  Ps.  ii.  7  to  Christ,  in  connexion  with  His  resurrection  from 
the  dead.  It  does  not  mean,  that  He  was  constituted  God's 
Son  by  the  resurrection ;  but  that  the  power  of  the  resurrec 
tion  belonged  to  Him  as  God's  Son,  and  by  the  exercise  of 
this  power  was  His  Sonship  made  incontrovertibly  manifest. 
And  it  is  merely  by  following  out  the  same  line  of  thought, 
that  the  other  passage — that  from  Isaiah — is  applied  to  the 
perpetuity  of  Christ's  risen  life.  It  was  not  enough  for  the 
apostle's  purpose  to  exhibit  a  risen  Saviour;  he  must  show 
this  Saviour  to  be  the  possessor  of  an  endless  life;  for,  other 
wise,  the  realization  of  the  world's  hopes  would  not  be  com 
plete;  the  covenant  could  not  have  been  established  on  a  suf 
ficient  basis.  Therefore,  the  promise  is  called  in,  which  spoke 
of  "the  sure  mercies  of  David" — the  mercies  which  had  for 
their  guarantee  the  everlasting  faithfulness  of  Jehovah.  Here 
there  is  no  room  for  failure,  as  in  the  case  of  merely  human 
gifts  or  promises;  the  covenant  once  ratified  by  the  appear 
ance  and  triumph  of  Jesus,  stands  fast  for  ever,  living  in  the 
presence  of  the  Father,  He  can  see  no  corruption,  and  of  His 
kingdom  of  grace  and  blessing  there  can  be  no  end. 

XIII. 

Rom.  i.  17;  Hab.  ii.  4. 

The  only  question  that  can  be  raised  upon  this  citation  is, 
whether  the  word  rendered  faith  is  taken  by  the  apostle  pre 
cisely  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  used  by  the  prophet. 
The  word  is  undoubtedly  employed  in  different  senses;  some 
times  as  an  objective  matter-of-fact  property — stability,  the 
settled  condition  of  things;  sometimes  as  a  personal  property 
of  God,  His  fidelity  or  truthfulness;  and  sometimes,  again,  as 


496  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

a  personal  property  of  men,  their  truthfulness  in  word  or  deed, 
steadfast  adherence  to  what  is  felt  to  be  right  and  good.  Some 
have  hence  sought  to  identify  it,  as  used  by  Habakkuk,  with 
the  righteous  principle  generally;  and  Hitzig  even  says,  on 
the  passage,  that  it  might  as  well  have  been  said,  that  the 
righteous  man  shall  live  by  his  righteousness.  But  to  this  it 
is  justly  replied  by  Delitzsch,  that  "in  a  passage  which  treats, 
not  of  the  relation  of  God  to  man,  or  of  man  to  his  fellow- 
men,  but  of  man  to  God,  it  may  fitly  designate  the  state  of 
him  who,  in  respect  to  God,  is  named  R^-,  faithful  or  steady. 
But  he  is  so  named,  whose  spirit  clings  to  God  with  unwaver 
ing  steadfastness,  whose  mind  is  firmly  fixed  upon  God,  (Psal. 
Ixxviii.  8;  1  Chron.  xxix.  18.)  The  property  here  marked, 
accordingly,  is  that  of  an  unshaken  confidence  in  God,  a  firm 
adhesion  to  God,  or  unwavering  direction  of  the  soul  upon 
Him.  If,  then,  the  subject  of  discourse  is  the  gracious  pro 
mises  of  God,  the  term  before  us  will  denote  an  unshaken  rest 
ing  upon  these,  or  firm  confidence  in  them;  in  short,  faith, 
for  this  settled  acquiescence,  this  firm  confidence,  this  tena 
cious  cleaving,  is  the  very  soul,  the  constituting  element  of  a 
living,  life-giving,  justifying  faith."  As  used  by  the  prophet, 
it  is  of  the  general  principle  of  faith,  as  an  humble,  confiding 
trust  in  God's  power  and  faithfulness — of  this,  as  opposed  to 
the  proud,  self-reliant  spirit  of  the  Chaldean,  that  the  prophet 
speaks.  He  who  has  such  faith  shall  live;  for  the  living  God 
is  on  his  side,  and  infinite  resources  of  grace  and  blessing  are 
at  his  command.  But  it  is  so  still,  the  apostle  affirms;  the 
principle  is  an  all-pervading  one;  and  whenever  life  in  the 
higher  sense  is  attained,  it  comes  only  through  faith  in  the 
manifested  grace  of  God,  realizing  and  trusting  in  what  this 
has  provided. 

XIV. 

Rom.  xi.  9,  10;  Ps.  Ixix.  22,  23. 

The  verses  here  quoted  and  applied  to  the  apostate  part  of 
the  Jewish  people,  are  from  one  of  the  psalms,  which  the 
Apostle  Peter  had  applied  to  Judas,  (Acts  i.  20.)  This  appli 
cation  of  it  confirms  the  view  taken  of  the  subject  at  the  place 


GAL.  in.  16;  GEN.  xxii.  18.  497 

referred  to.  Judas  and  the  Jewish  people  are  identified;  their 
sin  was  substantially  the  same,  and  such  also  must  be  their 
condemnation.  In  both  cases  alike,  the  falsehood  and  trea 
chery  that  had  been  manifested  toward  the  cause  of  Heaven, 
must  be  repaid  into  their  own  bosom. 

XV. 

Gal.  iii.  16;  Gen.  xxii.  18. 

The  apostle  Peter,  very  shortly  after  the  ascension  of  our 
Lord,  had  applied  the  promise  to  Abraham,  about  all  the  fa 
milies  of  the  earth  being  blessed  in  his  seed,  in  such  a  way  as 
clearly  to  imply,  that  the  fulfilment  was  to  be  found  in  Christ. 
All  were  to  be  blessed  in  Abraham's  seed;  and  God  having 
raised  up  His  Son  Jesus,  hath  sent  Him  (says  Peter)  to  bless 
you  first — meaning,  to  give  the  seed  of  Israel  precedence  in 
the  enjoyment  of  the  benefit,  which  yet  was  to  be  diffused 
through  every  tribe  and  region  of  the  world,  (Acts  iii.  25,  26.) 
By  implication  at  least,  this  really  involves  the  principle  of 
the  Apostle  Paul's  formal  explanation  in  Gal.  iii.  16.  For  he 
merely  asserts,  that  the  Abrahamic  promise  of  blessing  concen 
trates  itself,  as  to  vital  efficacy,  in  Christ,  and  so  is  enjoyed  by 
such,  but  only  by  such  as  are  in  organic  union  with  Him.  Not 
to  seeds,  therefore,  as  of  many — not  to  Abraham's  offspring 
indiscriminately — the  various  families  and  tribes  that  looked 
to  him  as  their  common  fleshly  head;  but  to  the  one  seed  that 
combined  the  spiritual  with  the  carnal  bond  of  affinity  to  Abra 
ham — the  seed  of  which  Christ  was  to  be  the  public  repre 
sentative,  and  the  one  living  Head.  This  seed,  throughout 
all  its  generations  and  members,  is  properly  but  one,  having 
its  standing,  its  characteristics,  its  destiny  in  Christ.  So  that 
by  Christ,  as  the  one  seed,  the  apostle  does  not  mean  Christ 
individually,  but  Christ  collectively — Christ  personally,  in 
deed,  first,  but  in  Him,  and  along  with  Him,  the  whole  of  His 
spiritual  body  the  Church.  This  is  put  beyond  all  doubt  by 
ver.  28,  29,  where  he  says  of  believers,  that  they  are  all  one 
(sic)  in  Christ — one  corporate  being — and  that  being  Christ's, 
they  are  Abraham's  seed  (axsppoi) — a  collective  unity,  as  re 
gards  the  heirship  of  blessing.  The  term  Christ  is  used  in  a 

42* 


498  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  TIIE  NEW. 

precisely  similar  manner  at  1  Cor.  xii.  12,  where  our  Lord 
and  His  people  are  compared  to  the  body  with  its  many  mem 
bers,  and  are  simply  designated  Christ.  If  the  apostle  had 
meant  in  either  case  the  simply  personal  Redeemer,  he  would 
doubtless  have  said,  Christ  Jesus.  Considered  thus,  the  ar 
gument  of  the  apostle  is  perfectly  legitimate,  and  there  is  no 
thing  whatever  of  the  Rabbinical  in  it.  The  use  of  the  singu 
lar  from  the  first  showed,  as  Tholuck  has  justly  remarked, 
"that  the  prophecy  had  a  definite  posterity  in  view,  namely, 
a  believing  posterity;  and  had  seeds  been  employed,  it  would 
have  indicated,  that  all  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  who  sprung 
from  him  by  natural  descent,  were  included."  This  was  not 
meant;  the  seed  of  blessing  was  to  hold  of  Abraham  in  a  spi 
ritual  respect,  still  more  essentially  than  in  a  carnal;  and  the 
apostle  merely  affirms,  that  it  has  its  spiritual  standing,  and 
with  that  its  organic  oneness,  in  Christ.  No  otherwise  could 
it  be  a  seed  of  blessing. 

iXYI. 

Heb.  i.  6;  Ps.  xcvii.  7. 

The  chief  peculiarity  in  this  application  of  an  Old  Testa 
ment  passage  to  Christ,  is  in  respect  to  the  time  or  occasion 
with  which  it  is  more  particularly  associated.  The  Lord,  it 
is  said,  commanded  all  the  angels  (or  Elohim)  of  God  to  wor 
ship  the  Son,  when  He  introduced  Him  as  the  first-begotten 
into  the  world.  To  what  occasion  or  period  does  this  refer? 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Psalm  itself  to  enable  us  to  give  a 
very  specific  answer.  It  describes  in  figurative  and  striking 
terms  a  contemplated  manifestation  of  God — such  as  should 
confound  all  the  adversaries  of  Zion,  and  to  Zion  herself  bring 
peace,  security,  and  blessing.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that 
this  was  to  be  accomplished  in  the  highest  degree  by  the  in 
carnation  and  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  no  other 
wise  could  it  be  effectually  accomplished.  He  alone  was  to 
put  for  ever  to  shame  the  enemies  of  God's  truth,  and  esta 
blish  the  interests  of  righteousness — to  establish  them  on  such 
a  sure  foundation,  that  the  people  of  God  should  be  able  to 
rejoice  with  a  joy  unspeakable,  and  full  of  glory.  The  Psalm, 


HEB.  i.  10—12;  PS.  en.  25—27.  499 

therefore,  in  regard  to  its  main  theme,  might  be  associated 
generally  with  the  manifestation  of  Christ's  person  and  the 
execution  of  His  mediatorial  work ;  especially  as  in  the  preg 
nant  and  ideal  style  of  prophecy  particular  stages  and  precise 
moments  of  the  Divine  kingdom  are  often  less  contemplated 
than  its  general  character  and  results.  At  the  same  time,  as 
the  Psalmist  seems  to  have  more  properly  in  his  eye  the  final 
processes  of  the  work  of  Christ,  and  speaks  of  the  whole  world 
having  become  the  theatre  of  the  manifested  glory  of  God  in 
Him,  it  is  most  natural  to  understand  the  language  as  point 
ing  more  immediately  to  the  time  of  the  end,  when  every  thing 
shall  be  brought  to  its  proper  consummation.  This  seems  also 
to  be  the  view  adopted  by  the  inspired  writer  of  this  epistle ; 
for  the  xdhv  is  most  naturally  coupled  with  the  verb  that  fol 
lows — "when  He  (God)  again  bringeth  in  the  first-begotten 
into  the  world" — as  if  there  had  been  an  earlier  and  prelimi 
nary  bringing  in,  which  was  regarded  as  past,  and  another 
were  anticipated,  to  which  the  description  of  the  Psalmist 
more  especially  applied.  The  epithet  first-begotten  also,  as  a 
designation  of  Christ,  seems  to  point  in  the  same  direction ; 
for,  as  used  elsewhere,  it  has  a  predominant  reference  to  the 
(either  in  fact,  or  in  destination)  risen,  perfected  God-man,  in 
whom  all  humanity,  in  so  far  as  it  is  an  heir  of  blessing,  has 
its  life  and  head.  So  that,  when  in  this  respect  He  is  spoken 
of  as  being  again  brought  into  the  world,  we  naturally  think 
of  His  return  in  glory.  Even  at  his  first  advent,  however, 
angels  worship  and  serve  Him,  on  account  of  what  appeared 
in  Him  and  was  done  by  Him ;  and  when  the  passage  before 
us  is  placed  in  special  connexion  with  the  event  of  the  second 
advent,  it  is  not  as  if  the  affairs  of  the  first  were  altogether 
excluded. 

XVII. 

Heb.  i.  10-12;  Ps.  cii.  25-2T. 

It  strikes  one  at  first  sight  as  strange,  that  a  passage,  which 
proclaims  the  eternity  and  immutableness  of  God,  in  marked 
contrast  with  the  created  universe,  should  have  been  applied, 
without  a  note  of  explanation,  to  Christ,  as  if  He  were  beyond 


500  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

any  doubt  the  subject  of  the  representation.  But  it  must  be 
remembered,  the  sacred  writer  is  not  here  arguing  with  Jews, 
who  might  have  been  disposed  to  question  the  ground  on  which 
the  application  is  made.  He  is  addressing  believers,  Jewish 
Christians,  who  were  already  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  Christ's 
Messiahship,  and  who,  therefore,  understood,  that  in  Christ 
Divine  and  human  met  together — that  by  Him,  as  the  Great 
llevealer  of  Godhead,  the  worlds  were  originally  made,  and 
all  the  provisions  and  arrangements  connected  with  the  Old 
Economy  brought  into  existence.  It  is  in  truth  as  the  Divine 
Head  of  the  covenant  with  Israel,  and  in  particular  with  the 
house  of  David,  that  the  Lord  is  addressed  throughout  the 
102d  Psalm ;  and  the  thought  of  the  eternal  being  and  un- 
changeableness  of  God  is  brought  in,  not  absolutely  and  as  an 
independent  consideration,  but  in  connexion  with  the  hopes  of 
His  Church  and  people.  There  were  troubles,  the  Psalmist 
well  foresaw,  lying  in  the  future — calamities  and  desolations 
enough  to  make  the  pious  soul  conscious  of  gloom  and  horror 
at  the  prospect.  But  he  reassured  himself,  and  would  have 
afflicted  believers  in  every  age  to  re-assure  themselves,  by  rea 
lizing  their  connexion  with  their  eternal  and  glorious  King. 
He  is  infinitely  exalted  above  the  mutable  and  the  perishing; 
He  fails  not  with  created  things,  which  He  made  by  the  word 
of  His  mouth,  and  which  he  can  again  change  at  His  plea 
sure,  or  fold  up  as  a  decayed  garment; — And  we  also,  who  by 
faith  have  become  heirs  of  God,  and  have  an  imperishable  in 
terest  in  all  that  is  His,  are,  on  this  ground,  secured  against 
failure,  in  respect  to  our  hopes  of  final  bliss.  This  is  the  train 
of  thought  in  the  Psalm ;  and  the  passage,  therefore,  is  in  the 
strictest  sense  applicable  to  the  Divine  Redeemer,  by  whom 
the  worlds  were  made,  and  through  whom  all  the  operations 
of  Godhead  have  been,  and  are  executed  in  our  fallen  world. 

XVIII. 

Heb.  ii.  6-8 ;  Ps.  viii.  4-6. 

The  use  here  made  of  a  portion  of  the  8th  Psalm  has  been 
so  well  vindicated  by  Hengstenberg,  as  to  the  ground  on  which 
it  rests,  that  we  shall  do  little  more  than  quote  what  he  has 


IIEB.  IT.  6—8 ;  PS.  vni.  4—6.  501 

said  on  the  subject  in  his  introductory  remarks  on  the  Psalm. 
"The  Psalm  stands  in  the  closest  connexion  with  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis.     What  is  written  there  of  the  dignity  with 
which  God  invested  man  over  the  works  of  His  hands,  whom 
He  placed  as  His  representative  on  earth,  and  endowed  with 
the  lordship  of  creation,  that  is  here  made  the  subject  of  con 
templation  and  praise.     We  simply  have  that  passage  in  Ge 
nesis  turned  into  a  prayer  for  us.     But  how  far  man  still 
really  possesses  that  glory,  what  remains  of  it,  how  much  of  it 
has  been  lost, — of  this  the  Psalmist  takes  no  thought.     His 
object  was  merely  to  praise  the  goodness  of  God,  which  still 
remained  the  same,  as  God,  whose  gifts  are  without  repent 
ance,  has  not  arbitrarily  withdrawn  what  He  gave;  only  man, 
by  his  folly,  has  suffered  himself  to  be  robbed  of  it.     But  even 
with  this  single  eye  upon  the  goodness  of  God,  which,  on  His 
part,  continues  unabated,  it  is  to  be  understood,  that  the  en 
tire  representation  holds  good  only  at  the  beginning  and  the 
end;  and  but  very  imperfectly  suits  the  middle,  in  which  we, 
along  with  the  Psalmist,  now  stand.     When  this  middle  is 
placed  distinctly  before  the  eye,  man  is  represented  quite  other 
wise  in  the  Old  Testament  than  we  find  him  here — as  a  sheep, 
a  shadow,  a  falling  leaf,  a  worm,  as  dust  and  ashes.     And 
why  God  is  here  thanked,  see  especially  Isa.  xi.  6-9,  where 
the  same  reference  is  made  as  here  to  Gen.  L,  and  where  a 
restitution  is  promised  to  man,  in  the  times  of  Messiah,  of  the 
relation  he  originally  held  to  the  earth,  but  which  is  now  in  a 
state  of  prostration.     Accordingly,  the  matter  of  the  Psalm 
can  find  its  full  verification  only  in  the  future;  and  for  the 
present  it  applies  to  none  but  Christ,  in  whom  human  nature 
again  possesses  the  dignity  and  glory  over  creation,  which  was 
lost  in  Adam.     By-and-by,  when  the  moral  consequences  of 
the  fall  have  been  swept  away,  this  also  shall  come  to  be  the 
common  inheritance  of  the  human  family."     Contemplated 
thus,  the  application  of  the  8th  Psalm  to  the  temporary  humi 
liation  and  final  exaltation  of  Christ,  as  the  Head  of  redeemed 
and  glorified  humanity,  admits  of  a  perfect  justification.     Only, 
when  viewed  simply  in  reference  to  Christ,  the  words  descrip 
tive  of  the  nearly  Elohim-dignity  of  man  necessarily  become, 


502  OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  NEW. 

at  the  same  time,  indicative  of  a  relative,  though  temporary 
humiliation.  "With  the  man  of  creation  the  /fy>a/y  TC  is  an 
abiding  inferiority  of  degree,  connected  with  his  creaturely  ex 
istence;  but  the  Son  of  God,  who  has  humbled  Himself  to  the 
condition  of  man,  in  order  that  He  might  exalt  it  to  the  lofty 
position  which  it  is  destined  to  occupy,  cannot  remain  in  that 
low  estate;  and  so,  that  which  with  man  as  such  was  a  paulu- 
lum  of  degree  (much  as  at  2  Sam.  xvi.  1,)  becomes  changed 
into  a  paidulum  of  time  (fipo*fj~>  ft,  as  at  Isa.  Ivii.  17,  and  com 
monly  with  the  Attics;)  and  while  with  man  the  paidulum  of 
degree  has  his  glory  for  a  correlate,  with  Jesus  the  paululum 
of  time  has  his  glory  for  a  contrast.  Thus  the  sense  of  the 
flpa%'j  re  suffers  a  kind  of  necessary,  but  by  no  means  arbi 
trary  turn,  in  the  application  to  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  of  the 
words  that  were  originally  spoken  of  man  generally." — (De- 
litzsch.)  There  still  are  commentators,  among  others,  Stier, 
who  would  regard  the  Psalm  as  pointing  more  directly  to 
Christ,  and  to  the  restitution  of  all  things  to  be  brought  in  by 
Him.  But  this  view  cannot  be  deemed  so  natural  as  the 
other;  and  it  is  not  needed  to  justify  or  explicate  the  argu 
ment  of  the  apostle. 

XIX. 

Heb.  ii.  13;  Isa.  viii.  17,  18. 

Three  passages  are  here  appealed  to  in  proof  of  the  kindred- 
ness  of  Messiah  to  those  whom  He  came  to  redeem.  One  is 
from  Psal.  xxii.,  which  is  strictly  Messianic;  the  other  two 
from  the  eighth  chapter  of  Isaiah.  By  not  a  few  commen 
tators  the  propriety  of  these  latter  applications  is  doubted; 
at  least,  they  are  judged  applicable  only  in  a  secondary  sense, 
as  the  prophet  himself  is  considered  to  be  the  speaker  ;  so  that 
only  by  way  of  accommodation,  or  typically,  can  the  words 
be  understood  of  the  Messiah.  This,  however,  may  justly  be 
questioned,  and  is  questioned,  by  a  large  body  of  interpreters. 
They  hold,  that  as  in  the  immediately  preceding  verse,  it  is 
the  Messiah  who  appears  to  be  the  speaker — in  the  words, 
"  Bind  up  the  testimony,  seal  up  the  law,  among  My  disci 
ples," — so  He  ought  to  be  understood  as  continuing  to  speak 
in  vcr.  17  and  18,  declaring  His  trust  in  the  Father,  ana 


IIEB.  ii.  13;  ISA.  vm.  17,  18.  503 

pointing  to  the  spiritual  seed  the  Father  had  given  Him. 
The  passage  is  unquestionably  an  obscure  one;  but  even  if 
we  should  prefer  considering  the  prophet  as  more  directly  the 
speaker,  he  must  be  viewed  as  speaking  in  a  representative 
character — personating  the  being,  and  maintaining  the  cause 
of  the  Immanuel.  The  whole  discourse,  from  ch.  vii.  14  to 
ix.  7,  is  perpetually-turning  upon  "the  God  with  us,"  as  the 
great  security  and  hope  for  Israel;  and  mediately  or  imme 
diately,  the  words  in  question  must  be  regarded  as  pointing 
in  that  direction.  Either  way  the  use  made  of  them  in  the 
epistle  is  perfectly  legitimate. 

In  the  remaining  passages  of  Old  Testament  Scripture 
quoted,  either  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  or  in  the  gene 
ral  epistles,  there  is  nothing  very  peculiar,  as  regards  the  use 
that  is  made  of  them  by  the  inspired  writers.  We  may  simply 
state,  in  regard  to  the  application  made  of  Ps.  xl.  in  Heb.  x. 
5—10,  to  the  personal  obedience  and  offering  of  Christ,  that 
it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  excluding  an  inferior  reference 
to  the  Psalmist  himself.  He  knew  perfectly,  in  regard  to  his 
own  spiritual  state  and  calling,  that  a  willing  surrender  of 
himself  to  God  ranked  higher  than  the  mere  presentation  of 
animal  victims;  and  substantially  the  same  idea  is  expressed 
elsewhere,  in  passages  that  undoubtedly  have  a  direct  refe 
rence  to  the  Psalmist  and  his  fellow-worshippers  in  Old  Testa 
ment  times  (Psal.  1.  7-15,  li.  16,  17.)  It  is  not  necessary, 
therefore,  to  suppose,  that  in  Psal.  xl.  no  respect  was  had  to 
that  self-dedication  to  the  Divine  service,  which  even  under 
the  ancient  dispensation  was  preferred  to  all  burnt-offerings. 
But  as  little  should  the  remarkable  words  there  written  be  con 
fined  to  that;  and  the  defects  and  short-comings,  of  which  the 
saints  of  God  in  those  earlier  times  were  painfully  conscious, 
as  mingling  with  all  their  personal  surrenders  to  God,  could 
not  but  dispose  them  to  look  for  the  proper  realization  of  what 
was  written  in  one  higher  and  greater  than  themselves.  The 
spiritual  Israel  in  every  age  aimed  at  it;  but  He  alone,  in 
whom  Israel's  state  and  calling  were  to  find  their  true  accom 
plishment,  could  in  the  full  sense  appropriate  the  words,  and 
embody  them  in  action. 


APPENDIX. 


THE  HISTORICAL  CIRCUMSTANCES  THAT  LED  TO  CHRIST  S  BIRTH 
AT  BETHLEHEM — CYRENIUS  AND  THE   TAXING  (p.  395.) 

THE  application  of  the  prophecy  in  Micah  v.  2  to  the  birth 
of  our  Lord  at  Bethlehem,  by  the  Evangelist  Matthew,  in 
volves  in  itself  no  peculiar  difficulty;  for  the  prophecy  itself 
is  so  specific,  and  was  so  readily  understood  and  applied  by 
the  Jews  themselves  to  the  great  event  it  contemplated,  that 
the  use  made  of  it  in  this  connexion  cannot  justly  be  questioned 
by  any  fair  interpreter  of  Scripture.  The  difficulties  which 
do  hang  around  the  subject  have  sprung  up  in  connexion  with 
the  historical  circumstances,  which  are  mentioned  by  the 
Evangelist  Luke,  as  the  more  immediate  causes  that  led  to 
the  birth  of  Christ  at  Bethlehem.  These  circumstances  re 
late,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  decree  issued  by  Augustus, 
appointing  a  general  census  or  enrolment  to  take  place;  arid, 
secondly  and  more  especially,  to  the  incidental  notice  as  to 
the  time  when  this  decree  was  carried  into  e-ffect,  that  it  was 
while  Cyrenius  was  governor,  or  had  the  presidency  of  Syria ; 
~f]  a~ofpa(p'f]  Ttpcbrq  ifivzro  "/ffeuousuovTOz  r^c  Sopio.^  Ku- 
This  latter  being  the  more  special  difficulty,  and  one 
also  on  which  recently  some  new  light  has  emerged,  we  shall 
here  give  it  our  first  and  chief  attention. 

I.  Giving  to  the  words  of  St.  Luke  what  seems  their  na 
tural  and  grammatical  rendering,  "  this  first  enrolment  was 
made  (or,  it  was  first  made)  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of 
Syria,"  they  appear  plainly  enough  to  indicate,  that  at  the 
time  the  presidency  of  Syria  was  in  the  hands  of  Cyrenius, 


PRESIDENCY  OF  CYRENIUS,  LUKE  II.  2.  505 

and  possibly  also  (though  that  is  not  so  clear)  that  the  census 
now  under  consideration  was  an  earlier  as  contrasted  with  a 
later  one.  Dismissing,  however,  for  the  present,  the  ques 
tion,  whether  reference  is  made  to  a  second  census,  we  have 
to  face  the  position  which  seems  involved  in  the  historical 
statement  of  the  Evangelist,  that  the  particular  census,  which 
led  to  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem,  took  place  during  the 
time  that  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria.  And  this,  it  is 
alleged,  was  impossible;  for  to  quote  the  words  of  Meyer, 
"at  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  Q.  Sentius  Saturninus 
was  president  of  Syria,  and  P;  Sulpicius  Quirinius  did  not  be 
come  so  till  about  ten  years  later;"  i.  e.  ten  years  after  the 
real  period  of  our  Lord's  birth,  but  only  six  after  the  common 
era,  which  is  four  years  too  late.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Cyrenius,  or  Quirinius  (as  the  name  ought  rather  to  be  writ 
ten,  and  as  we  shall  retain  it  in  what  follows,)  did  receive  the 
presidency  of  Syria  at  the  later  period  mentioned,  and  shortly 
afterwards  did  conduct  a  census  in  Judea.  So  that,  if  this 
•were  the  only  presidency  of  Syria,  held  by  Quirinius,  and  the 
only  census  taken  contemporaneously  with  it,  the  statement 
of  the  Evangelist  must  be  pronounced  erroneous. 

It  certainly  would  be  very  strange  if  such  were  the  case ; 
for,  apart  altogether  from  the  inspiration  of  St.  Luke,  it  would 
indicate  a  degree  of  looseness  in  historical  information,  which 
would  ill  comport  with  his  assertion  at  the  outset,  of  possess 
ing  "perfect  understanding  of  all  the  matters"  he  was  going 
to  write  about;  and  it  would  just  as  little  correspond  with 
the  remarkable  accuracy  exhibited  in  his  other  historical  no 
tices.  The  most  searching  results  of  modern  inquiry  have  not 
only  confirmed  the  general  fidelity  of  his  allusions  to  political 
affairs  and  current  pvents,  but  have  established  his  correct 
ness  even  in  minute  details,  and  in  respect  to  points  on  which 
for  a  time  his  testimony  lay  under  a  measure  of  suspicion. 
The  narrative  in  Acts  xxvii.  of  St.  Paul's  voyage  and  ship 
wreck,  in  which  every  particular  has  been  subjected  to  the 
severest  scrutiny,  and  has  thereby  become  but  the  more  clearly 
marked  with  the  attributes  of  truth,  is  itself  a  convincing  evi 
dence  of  this.  But  one  or  two  examples  more  may  be  taken, 
43 


506  APPENDIX. 

and  these  more  closely  connected  with  the  point  under  dis 
cussion.  In  Acts  xviii.  12,  Gallio  is  called  "pro-consul," 
(Eng.  version,  deputy)  of  Achaia;  and  Achaia  was,  indeed, 
originally  a  senatorial  province;  but  Tiberius  changed  it  into. 
an  imperial  one.  In  that  case  proprce-tor  would  have  been 
the  proper  name  for  the  representative  of  the  Roman  state. 
Stra'bo  expressly  calls  it  4'a  praetorian  province;"  and  not 
only  had  great  perplexities  thence  arisen  among  the  learned, 
but  Beza  even  took  the  liberty  to  correct  the  text,  substi 
tuting  pro-prcetor  for  pro-consul.  But  we  learn  from  Sueto 
nius,  that  the  Emperor  Claudius  restored  the  province  to  the 
Senate;  and  as  this  change  took  place  only  about  five  or  six 
years  before  the  time  referred  to  by  St.  Luke,  pro-consul  had 
then  become  the  proper  designation.  Again,  in  Acts  xiii.  7, 
8,  Sergius  Paulus  is  called  the  pro-consul  of  Cyprus,  although 
Cyprus  is  known  to  have  been  ranked  as  an  imperial  province, 
and  might  still  have  been  reckoned  so  'by  the  learned,  but 
for  a  notice  in  Dio  Cassius,  which  contains  the  information, 
that  Augustus  restored  it  to  the  Senate.  "  And  so,"  says 
Tholuck,  who,  after  Lardner,  refers  to  the  passage,  "  as  if  pur 
posely  to  vindicate  the  Evangelist,  the  old  historian  adds, 
4  Thus  pro-consuls  began  to  be  sent  into  that  island,  also.' ' 

Now,  it  is  surely  against  all  probability,  that  a  historian, 
who  has  shown  in  such  things  the  most  exact  and  scrupulous 
fidelity,  and  whose  reputation  for  accuracy  has  been  in  danger 
of  suffering,  not  from  our  possessing  too  much,  but  rather  from 
our  possessing  too  little  of  collateral  testimony — it  is  against 
all  probability,  that  he  should  have  committed  the  gross  ana 
chronism  of  connecting  Quirinius  with  Syria,  at  a  period  ten 
years  before  his  presidency  actually  commenced.  It  is  the 
less  likely  in  this  case,  that  there  should  have  been  such  an 
erroneous  antedating  of  a  public  event,  as  there  is  every  rea 
son  to  suppose  that  the  Evangelist  himself  was  a  native  of 
Syria,  most  probably  a  citizen  of  Antioch,  and,  consequently, 
must  have  had  every  facility  for  becoming  acquainted  with 
the  political  history  of  the  district. 

A  conviction  of  the  extreme  improbability  of  any  error  in 
this  direction,  has  led  many  persons — among  others  in  the 


PRESIDENCY  OF  CYRENIUS,  LUKE  II.  2.  507 

last  century  Lardner,  and  in  the  present  Ewald  and  Greswell — 
to  adopt  an  unusual  translation  of  the  passage  in  Luke,  so  as 
to  make  it  point  to  a  future,  not  to  an  existing,  presidency 
of  Quirinius.  They  would  render,  "And  this  enrolment  was 
made  before  that  Quir.  had  the  presidency  of  Syria."  Cer 
tainly  an  unnatural,  if  even  (in  the  circumstances)  an  admis 
sible,  representation  of  the  meaning;  and  one  that  could  only 
be  resorted  to,  if  it  were  otherwise  impossible  to  vindicate  the 
truthfulness  of  the  narrative!  But  we  are  saved  from  this 
alternative  by  the  recent  progress  of  research  in  the  historical 
territory,  which  has  again,  and  in  a  very  singular  manner,  lent 
its  confirmation  to  the  scrupulous  accuracy  of  the  Evangelist. 
The  person  who,  in  this  instance,  has  conducted  the  investiga 
tion,  is  Augustus  W.  Zumpt,  the  anthor  of  a  very  learned 
work  on  Roman  Antiquities — entitled  Commentationes  Epi 
graphies?  ad  Antiquitates  Romanas  pertinentes.  In  the  se 
cond  volume  of  this  work  he  has  a  chapter  on  Syria  as  a  Ro- 
m;m  province  from  Caesar  Augustus  to  Titus  Vespasian,  in 
which  he  treats  of  the  successive  governors  of  the  province, 
and  the  leading  features  of  their  respective  administration. 
It  is  an  entirely  literary,  or  antiquarian  investigation;  and 
simply  as  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  Syrian  presiden 
cies,  the  passage  in  Luke  ii.  2  comes  into  consideration.  The 
inquiry  is  conducted  with  great  patience  and  acuteness;  and 
in  so  far  as  it  bears  on  the  point  before  us — for  it  frequently 
branches  off  in  other  directions — we  shall  present  an  outline 
of  the  argument. 

Taking  the  words  of  the  Evangelist  Luke  in  their  apparent 
sense,  as  denoting  the  contemporaneousness  of  a  presidency 
of  Quirinius  over  Syria  with  the  event  that  led  to  Christ's 
birth  at  Bethlehem,  Zumpt  conceives  that  there  is  the  more 
reason  for  adhering  to  that  sense  of  the  Evangelist,  and  ac 
crediting  the  testimony  it  delivers  respecting  Quirinius,  that 
the  Fathers  in  various  connexions  deliver  a  like  testimony. 
Thus  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  5,  "Now  this  was  the  forty-se 
cond  year  of  the  reign  of  Augustus,  and  the  twenty- eighth 
from  the  subjugation  of  Egypt,  and  the  decease  of  Antony 
and  Cleopatra,  with  which  last  event  terminated  the  dynasty 
of  the  Ptolemies  in  Egypt,  when  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 


508  APPENDIX. 

Christ  was  born  in  Bethlehem  of  Judea  on  the  occasion  of  the 
first  census  being  taken,  and  while  Quirinius  was  governor  of 
Syria."  The  reckoning  here  given  dates  from  the  time  that 
Augustus  was  first  made  consul ;  from  which  time  there  were 
forty-one  years  complete  to  the  third  before  the  Christian  era, 
and  twenty-eight  after  the  subjugation  of  Egypt.  At  that  pe 
riod,  therefore,  which  to  a  nearness  coincides  with  the  real 
time  of  Christ's  birth,  Eusebius  plainly  believed,  that  Quiri 
nius  presided  over  Syria,  and  that  a  census  was  taken:  and 
so  also  did  Irenseus,  Hser.  ii.  22,  6;  Tertullian  adv.  Jud.  c.  9; 
Clemens  Alex.  Strom,  i.  p.  147,  etc.  In  all  these  passages 
both  the  fact  of  a  general  census,  and  the  presidency  of  Quir. 
over  Syria,  at  the  time  of  Christ's  birth,  are  distinctly  assert 
ed.  Of  what  nature  the*census  might  be,  or  whether  the  time 
of  its  being  taken  might  precisely  accord  with  the  exact  pe 
riod  of  Christ's  birth,  is  not  now  the  question.  But  in  regard 
to  the  Syrian  presidency  of  Quir.  there  is  an  important  notice 
in  Tacitus,  Annal.  iii.  48,  which  he  introduces  in  connexion 
with  the  death  of  Quir.,  A.D.  21.  Nihil  ad  veterem  et  patri- 
ciam  Sulpiciorum  familiam  Quir.  pertinuit,  ortus  apud  mu- 
nicipium  Lanuvium:  sed  impiger  militia?  et  acribus  ministe- 
riis  consulatum  sub  divo  Augnsto,  mox  expugnatis  per  Qiliei- 
am  Homonadensium  castellis  insignia  triumplii  adcptus,  da- 
tusque  rector  Q.  Ocesari  Armeniam  obtinenti  Tiberium  quoque 
Rliodi  agentem  coluerat.  Quod  tune  patefecit  (viz.  Tiberius) 
in  Senatu  laudatis  in  se  officiis  et  ineusato  M.  Lollio,  quern 
auctorem  0.  Cuesari  pravitatis  et  diseordiarum  arguebat.  Here 
we  learn  respecting  Quir.,  first  that  he  was  a  man  of  compara 
tively  obscure  origin;  then,  that  he  had  approved  himself  to 
be  expert  in  military  affairs,  and  services  that  called  for 
stringent  measures,  in  consequence  of  which  he  had  attained 
to  the  consulship  under  Augustus,  by-and-by  also  got  the  tri 
umphal  badges  for  having  stormed  the  fortresses  of  the  Ho- 
monadenses,1  and  was  afterwards  appointed  counsellor  or  guar- 

1  The  triumphal  badges  or  ornaments  were  the  honours  granted  in  place  of 
a  triumph,  after  triumphs  ceased  to  be  held  except  by  the  Emperors.  They 
consisted  in  the  permission  to  receive  the  titles  bestowed  on  those  who  did 
obtain  triumphs,  to  wear  in  public  the  robes  peculiar  to  them,  and  to  be 
queath  triumphal  statues  to  their  descendants. 


PRESIDENCY  OF  CYRENIUS,  LUKE  II.  2.  509 

dian  to  Caius  Coesar  on  receiving  Armenia.  He  had  also  paid 
court  to  Tiberius,  when  residing  at  Rhodes  in  a  sort  of  exile, 
and  Tiberius  reported  to  the  Senate  in  laudatory  terms  the 
services  rendered  to  him  by  Quir.,  while  he  charged  M.  Lol- 
lius  with  having  led  C.  Caesar  into  vicious  and  quarrelsome 
courses.  Now,  as  the  C.  Csesar  here  mentioned,  one  of  the 
grandsons  of  Augustus,  is  known  to  have  obtained  Armenia 
in  the  year  B.  c.  1,  and  as  Quir.  was  raised  to  the  consulship 
in  B.  c.  12,  it  is  manifest,  that  the  conquest  of  the  Homona- 
denses  must  have  been  accomplished  in  the  interval.  It  re 
mains,  therefore,  to  be  inquired  who  these  people  were,  and 
in  what  position  Quir.  was,  when  he  made  himself  master  of 
their  fortified  places. 

The  Homonadenses  are  mentioned  by  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  v. 
23,  94,  as  a  people  in  the  farthest  parts  of  Cilicia,  near  the 
Isauri,  with  a  fortified  town,  Homona,  and  forty-four  strong 
holds  situated  in  rugged  valleys  or  ravines.  Strabo  also  oc 
casionally  mentions  them,  and  places  them  in  the  rough  parts 
of  Cilicia,  near  the  Isauri,  and  the  Pisidians,  xiv.  1,  4,  24. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  about  their  character  and 
position ;  they  were  evidently  a  hardy  and  troublesome  set  of 
mountaineers,  occupying  a  number  of  forts  in  the  more  inac 
cessible  parts  of  Cilicia,  and  requiring  a  vigorous  and  ener 
getic  warrior,  like  Quir.,  to  bring  them  into-  subjection.  But 
how  should  he  have  come  into  conflict  with  them?  Or  what 
might  be  the  province  held  by  him,  when  he  gained  such  victo 
ries  over  the  Homonadenses,  and  triumphal  ornaments  on  ac 
count  of  them? 

Various  provinces  might  be,  and  have  been  thought  of.  (1.) 
Proconsular  Asia;  but  this  will  not  suit.  For.  the  Homona 
denses  did  not  live  within  the  bounds  of  that  province;  and, 
besides,  proconsular  Asia  having  come  before  this  into  a  state 
of  entire  subjugation,  had  no  legion  stationed  in  it  (Tac.  Ann. 
iv.  5;)  and  hence  there  could  have  been  no  such  victories  won 
by  its  governor  as  to  secure  for  him  triumphal  honours.  (2.) 
Nor  could  it  be  Bithynia  and  Pontus;  for  Galatia  lay  between 
this  province  and  the  region  of  the  Homonadenses.  It  was 
also  a  senatorian  province,  and  had  no  legionary  force ;  even 

43* 


510  APPENDIX. 

Pliny,  in  Trajan's  time,  had  none,  though  his  case  was  some 
what  peculiar,  having  been  sent  to  put  things  in  order.  It 
was  usually  assigned,  too,  to  men  of  only  praetorian  rank 
(Dio,  liii.  12;)  so  that,  unless  we  should  betake  to  merely 
groundless  conjectures,  the  province  of  Bithynia  and  Pontus 
must  be  excluded  from  the  number  of  those  with  whom  Quir. 
might  be  supposed  to  have  been  connected.  (3.)  Galatia  has 
been  pointed  to  as  the  probable  region ;  but  this  also  fails  in 
the  requisite  conditions;  for  the  possessor  of  it  had  no  legion 
assigned  him,  with  which  he  might  carry  on  such  warlike  ope 
rations  as  would  entitle  him  to  triumphal  honours.  Nor  were 
the  Homonadenses  situated  in  Galatia,  but  on  its  borders ;  so 
that  the  governor  of  the  province,  even  if  he  had  the  com 
mand  of  a  legion,  could  have  had  no  call  to  make  war  upon 
those  Cilician  mountaineers.  It  is  also  known,  that  the  pro 
vince  of  Galatia  was  wont  to  be  committed  to  a  man  of  prae 
torian  rank  (Eutrop.  vii.  5;  Euseb.  Chron.  p.  168.)  (4.)  Ci- 
licia  alone  remains,  which  seems  to  be  indicated  by  Tacitus  as 
the  province — so  far,  at  least,  the  province  of  Quir.,  that  the 
people,  whose  forts  were  scattered  through  it,  lay  within  his 
jurisdiction.  But  Cilicia  by  itself  was  by  much  too  small  a 
province  for  a  consular  man,  at  the  head  of  a  legion ;  it  must 
have  been  conjoined  with  some  other  district.  It  is  stated  by 
Dio,  liii.  12,  that  when  Augustus  surrendered,  in  the  27th 
year  of  his  reign,  the  thoroughly  reduced  and  quiet  provinces 
to  the  Senate,  he  reserved  Cilicia  (because  of  the  fierce  and 
warlike  tribes  that  were  in  it,)  and  also  Cyprus.  Afterwards, 
however,  in  B.  c.  22,  Cyprus  was  granted  to  the  Senate,  (Dio, 
liv.  4.)  It,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  coupled  with  Cili 
cia  to  make  out  a  sufficient  province;  and  it  seems  impossible 
to  think  of  any  other  region  than  Syria. 

The  conclusion  thus  arrived  at  from  the  examination  of  the 
passage  in  Tacitus,  is  confirmed  by  evidence  from  other  sources. 
For  example,  in  the  year  B.  c.  17,  Syria  and  Cilicia  appear  to 
have  been  associated  under  one  provincial  administration; 
since,  when  Cn.  Piso  then  obtained  the  presidency  of  Syria, 
and  required  to  levy  troops  against  Germanicus,  he  sent  an 
order  to  the  chiefs  (reguli)  of  the  Cilicians  to  furnish  him  with 


PRESIDENCY  OF  CYRENIUS,  LUKE  IT.  2.  511 

supplies  of  men  (Tac.  Ann.  ii.  70,  78.)  It  is  by  no  means 
probable,  that  either  he  would  have  issued  such  an  order,  or 
that  they  would  have  complied  with  it  (especially  in  a  war 
against  Germanicus,)  unless  the  governor  of  Syria  had  a  legal 
right  to  their  services.  And  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings 
that  followed,  during  which  Piso  himself  acted  treacherously, 
he  is  reported  to  have  seized  the  fortress  of  Celenderis,  which 
Tacitus  designates  a  town  in  Cilicia  (Ann.  ii.  80,)  and  Strabo 
also  places  in  the  highlands  of  Cilicia  (xiv.  4.)  But  it  is  also 
connected  withPiso's  province,  which  was  Syria;  for  Piso  was 
accused  by  Tiberius  to  the  Senate  of  seeking  to  possess  the 
province  (the  province,  namely,  over  which  he  had  been  ap 
pointed)  by  force  of  arms — armis  repetita  provincia  (Tac. 
Ann.  iii.  12) — and  on  this  very  account  the  Emperor  is  said 
to  have  been  implacable  toward  Piso,  that  he  had  taken  arms 
against  the  province — ob  bellum  provincice  inlatum  (Ann.  iii. 
14.)  In  another  passage  of  Tacitus,  Ann.  vi.  41,  it  is  stated 
that  Vitellius,  president  of  Syria,  sent  troops  A.  D.  36,  to  subdue 
the  Clitae,  a  people  of  Cilicia,  as  work  that  properly  fell  under 
his  administration.  It  thus  appears,  that  both  about  B.  c.  25, 
and  A.  D.  36,  Cilicia  was  conjoined  with  Syria  into  one  province, 
and  placed  under  the  sway  of  one  imperial  representative;  and 
so  it  remained  till  the  times  of  Vespasian. 

From  these  data  there  seems  no  avoiding  the  conclusion, 
that  Quir.,  at  the  time  that  he  possessed  himself  of  the  forts 
of  the  Homonadenses  throughout  Cilicia,  was  the  legate  of 
Augustus  and  pro-prsetor  of  Syria.  It  only  remains  to  be 
ascertained,  more  narrowly,  if  such  a  thing  be  possible,  over 
what  period  his  presidency  was  spread,  and  how  far  down  it 
reached.  The  determination  of  this  point  is  to  be  sought  in 
another  series  of  passages,  and  chiefly  in  those  which  connect 
Quir.  with  Caius  Caesar.  As  the  da-te  of  his  elevation  to  the 
consulship  precluded  his  connexion  with  Syria  at  an  earlier 
period  than  B.  c.  12,  so  his  relationship  to  C.  Caesar  fixes  its 
termination  to  a  period  not  later  than  about  the  commence 
ment  of  the  Christian  era.  For  it  was  at  the  very  close  of 
the  year  B.  c.  2,  or  the  beginning  of  B.  c.  1,  that  C.  Caesar  ob 
tained  the  government  of  Armenia,  when  it  was  threatened 


512  APPENDIX. 

with  war  by  Phraates,  the  Parthian  king.  Velleius,  ii.  101, 
states,  that  he  set  out  for  Armenia  a  short  time  after  his  mo 
ther  Julia  was  banished  for  her  incontinence;  and  this  banish 
ment  is  known  to  have  taken  place  before  Kal.  Oct.  of  B.  c.  2. 
It  was  some  time  after  this  that  Caius  set  out,  and  he  took 
Greece,  Egypt,  Palestine,  on  his  way.  He  even  appears  to 
have  spent  the  winter  at  Samos,  where  he  was  visited  by  his 
stepfather  Tiberius,  at  that  time  resident  in  Rhodes  (Suet. 
Tib.  c.  11.)  The  year  immediately  B.  c.  must,  therefore,  have 
been  nearly  spent  before  he  left  Samos;  and  in  the  following 
year,  A.  D.  1,  he  was  designated  consul,  and  set  forth  toward 
the  region  over  which  he  was  appointed.  The  year  after  this 
he  brought  Phraates  to  a  conference,  in  which  the  Parthians 
agreed  to  abandon  Armenia.  But  in  a  subsequent  war  with 
Tigranes  the  Armenian,  he  received  a  wound,  of  which  he 
died  in  A.  D.  4,  the  wound  itself  having  been  received  in  the 
third  year.  So  that  Quir.,  on  being  appointed  rector  to  C* 
Caesar,  evidently  did  not  require  to  quit  his  Syrian  presidency 
sooner  than  some  time  in  the  year  B.  c.  2,  and  it  might  even 
be  supposed,  on  a  hasty  consideration,  that  about  two  years 
later  might  have  been  soon  enough.  But  as  the  determination 
of  this  point  is  one  both  of  some  nicety  and  of  some  import 
ance,  it  is  necessary  to  look  a  little  more  closely  into  the 
circumstances  of  the  time. 

In  the  passage  formerly  quoted  from  Tacitus,  the  Emperor 
Tiberius  was  represented  as  commending  Quir.  for  the  part  he 
had  acted  toward  Caius  Caesar,  while  standing  in  the  relation 
of  rector  to  him,  and,  at  the  same  time,  severely  blaming  iVl. 
Lollius.1  Tacitus  does  not  expressly  say,  though  his  language 
seems  to  imply,  that  Lollius  held  the  same  relation  to  C.  Caesar 
that  Quirinius  had  done.  But  Suetonius  distinctly  calls  him 
comitem  et  rcctorem  0.  Csesaris  (Tib.  c.  12,  13,)  and  adds, 
that  from  the  charges  made  by  Lollius  against  Tiberius,  Ti 
berius  perceived,  when  he  went  on  a  visit  to  C.  Caesar  at 
Samos,  that  the  mind  of  the  latter  had  become  alienated  from 

1  The  rector  was  not  a  guardian  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  a  person  of  skill 
in  war  and  experience  in  affairs,  who  could  act  as  confidential  adviser  and 
counsellor  to  a  youthful  prince,  at  the  commencement  of  his  public  career.  . 


PRESIDENCY  OF  CYRENIUS,  LUKE  II.  2.  513 

him.  And  it  also  appears  from  a  passage  in  Yelleius,  ii.  102, 
that  when  the  conference  was  held  with  the  Parthian  king, 
Lollius  was  present,  and  represented  himself  as  appointed  by 
Augustus  to  be  a  sort  of  regulator  to  his  youthful  grandson — 
veluti  moderator  em  juventte  filii  sui.  It  thus  appears,  that  M. 
Lollius  had  become  rector  to  C.  Caesar  about  the  end  of  B.  c.  1 
or. the  beginning  of  A.  D.  1,  when  the  young  commander  was 
passing  the  winter  at  Samos,  and  that  he  continued  to  hold 
the  same^position  for  a  year  or  two  afterwards.  What  time, 
then,  must  be  assigned  for  Quir.  being  rector?  It  has  been 
thought  by  Norisius  (in  Cenot.  Pisan.  ii.  9,)  that  he  succeeded 
Lollius  in  the  office,  as  it  is  mentioned  by  Tacitus  in  connexion 
with  C.  Caesar's  obtaining  Armenia.  But  this  is  untenable. 
For  in  the  Latin  idiom  he  is  said  to  obtain  Armenia,  who  has 
acquired  the  legal  right  to  preside  over  it,  whether  he  may 
actually  have  taken  possession  of  it  or  not.  And  from  the 
position  and  import  of  the  words  in  the  passage  of  Tacitus 
(insignia  triumphi  adeptus,  datusque  rector  C.  Caesari — Ti- 
berium  quoque  Rhodi  agentem  coluerat,)  it  seejns  plain,  that 
Tiberius  was  at  Rhodes  at  the  time  when  Quir.  had  obtained 
his  triumphal  honours  and  had  become  rector  to  C.  Caesar. 
Hence  M.  Lollius  must  have  succeeded  Quir.,  and  not  this  the 
other.  It  is  also  certain  on  another  account;  for  by  com 
paring  Tacitus,  Ann.  iii.  22  and  48,  it  appears  that  Quir.  had, 
in  A.  D.  21,  been  married  about  twenty  years  to  Lepida,  a  lady 
of  high  rank  at  Rome,  whom  Augustus  had  destined  for  Lucius 
Caesar,  the  brother  of  Caius.  But  this  Lucius  died  in  A.  D.  2; 
and  hence  Quir.  must  have  gone  to  Rome,  and  become  married 
to  Lepida  about  the  time  that  Caius  actually  entered  on  his 
Armenian  administration.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  Quir. 
must  have  been  made  rector  to  C.  Caesar  immediately  on  the 
latter  crossing  the  sea  on  his  way  to  the  East,  and  remained 
with  him  for  a  year  or  so,  and  that  M.  Lollius  was  sent  to 
take  his  place  toward  the  beginning  of  the  first  year  of  the 
Christian  era.  It  seems  probable  also,  that  Quir.  accompa 
nied  C.  Caesar  to  Egypt,  and  that  both  together  paid  a  visit 
to  Tiberius  at  Rhodes,  with  which  the  latter  was  well  pleased; 
while  by  the  time  Tiberius  visited  Caias  at  Samos,  Lollius  had 


514  APPENDIX. 

become  rector,  and  had  begun  to  alienate  the  mind  of  Cams 
from  his  stepfather. 

Such,  then,  are  the  successive  links  of  the  history,  as 
brought  out  by  this  investigation:  Quir.,  it  is  ascertained, 
was  governor  or  president  of  Syria,  some  time  subsequent  to 

B.  c.  12,  when  he  obtained  the  consulship,  and  before  A.  D.  1 
or  2,  when   he  seems  to   have  gone  to   Rome,  and   become 
married  to  Lepida; — after  entering  on  his  Syrian  presidency, 
he  carried  on  a  difficult,  and,  no  doubt,  somewhat  arduous 
conflict,  with  the  warlike  mountaineers  of  Cilicia,  and  on  ac 
count  of  his  successes  against  them  obtained  triumphal  ho 
nours; — about  a  year  before  the   Christian  era  he  was  ap 
pointed  rector  to  C.  Caesar,  in  order  to  prepare  him  for  the 
administration  of  affairs  in  Armenia,  for  which  both  military 
prowess  and  a  considerable  measure  of  diplomatic  skill  were 
requisite ; — it  was,  however,  while  he  was  governor  of  Syria 
that  he  held  this  office  of  rectorship,  for  it  was  as  governor  of 
that  province  that  he  was  more  peculiarly  qualified  to  give  the 
counsel  and  aid  that  were  needed  to  one  who  was  going  to 
fulfil  a  difficult  and  dangerous  mission  in  the  neighbouring 
region  of  Armenia — whence  Lollius,  and  another  person,  who 
succeeded  him  in  the  one  office,  also  succeeded  him  in  the 
other — they  became  both  presidents  of  Syria  and  rectors  of 

C.  Caesar.     But  since  the  common  Christian  era  is  four  years 
later  than  the  actual  birth  of  Christ,  it  follows  that  Quir. 
must  have  been  governor  of  Syria  about  the  time  that  Christ 
was  born,  and  for  a  year  or   two  subsequent  to  the  event. 
And  thus  the  statement  of  St.  Luke,  reiterated  by  several  of 
the  Christian  fathers,  that  Quir.  was  president  of  Syria  at 
the  time  when  Jesus  was  born  at  Bethlehem,  is  fully  vindi 
cated,  though  the  proof   is  reached    only  by  a  minute  and 
lengthened  deduction,  and  it  is  again  the  paucity,  not  the 
fulness  of  the   collateral   sources   of  information,  which  has 
brought  into  suspicion  the  accuracy  of  the  sacred  historian.1 

1  In  the  text,  we  have  given  only  the  evidence  bearing  on  Quir.'s  presi 
dency  about  the  time  of  our  Lord's  birth.  But  since  the  investigations  of 
Norisius,  referred  to  in  the  preceding  discussion,  it  has  been  held  by  most 
writers  on  the  subject  (for  example,  by  Ores  well,  Harmony,  Vol.  I.,  Diss. 


PRESIDENCY  OF  CYRENIUS,  LUKE  II.  2.  515 

II.  The  other  points  connected  with  the  subject  need  not 
detain  us  long.  They  refer  to  the  nature  of  the  census,  for 
which,  it  is  said,  a  decree  was  issued  by  Caesar  Augustus,  and 
to  the  compass  of  territory  it  embraced  —  whether  the  whole 
Roman  world,  or  simply  that  portion  of  it  which  was  bounded 
by  the  regions  more  immediately  in  the  eye  of  the.  Evange 
list. 

In  regard  to  this  part  of  the  inquiry  —  which,  as  already 
stated,  is  not  touched  upon  by  Zumpt  —  it  ought  to  be  borne 
in  mind,  that  here  also  our  information  is  extremely  scanty; 
and  it  is  very  possible,  that  if  ampler  materials  were  within 
our  reach  for  determining  the  political  relations  and  move 
ments  of  the  time,  all  would  become  perfectly  plain.  In  such 
a  matter,  it  should  be  enough,  if  there  is  nothing  obviously 
irreconcilable  with  the  Evanelical  narrative  and  certain 


V.,  Meyer,  Alford,  etc,)  that  Saturninus  was  president  of  Syria  at  the 
time  of  Christ's  birth,  that  in  the  year  of  His  birth  (viz.  u.  c.  750)  Varus  be 
came  president,  and  continued,  probably,  for  five  years,  till  he  was  succeeded 
by  another  Saturninus.  It  is  admitted,  however,  for  instance,  by  Mr.  Ores- 
well,  that  coins  have  come  to  light,  which  do  not  readily  correspond  with  this 
representation.  And  the  more  careful  inquiries  of  Zumpt  tend  to  establish 
the  following  as  the  real  succession:  —  C.  Sentius  Saturninus  became  presi 
dent  of  Syria  in  the  year  9  B.C.  (i.e.  before  the  common  Christian  era,)  as 
may  be  inferred  from  Jos.  Ant.  xvi.  9.  1,  who  also  speaks  of  him  as  a  man  of 
consular  rank,  and  of  great  authority,  xvi.  11.  3,  etc.  ;  then,  it  appears  from 
coins  and  other  collateral  evidence,  that  Varus  obtained  the  Syrian  presi 
dency  in  B.  c.  6,  and  continued  for  about  two  years.  The  precise  time  when 
this  Varus  was  superseded  is  doubtful  ;  for  here,  both  the  notices  of  Josephus, 
and  other  accounts  of  Syrian  affairs,  are  somewhat  meagre  and  confused. 
Evidence,  however,  has  been  produced  of  L.  Volusius  Saturninus  having  held 
the  government  of  Syria;  and  it  is  certain  that  he  must  have  quitted  it  in 
the  year  6  A.  D.,  because  then  Quir.  was  appointed  to  Syria,  with  the  design 
of  reducing  Judea  to  a  Roman  province,  and  annexing  it  to  Syria.  But  be 
tween  this  Gth  year  after  A.  D.,  and  the  6th  before  it,  when  Varus  entered  on 
his  office,  there  is  room,  according  to  the  usual  practice  of  Augustus,  for  at 
least  one  legate,  and  possibly  more  than  one,  to  fill  up  the  space.  And  it  is 
here  that  the  legation,  first  of  Quir.  and  then  of  Lollius  (both  of  a  somewhat 
special  character,  and  lasting  but  a  short  time,)  come  in.  So  that  the  suc 
cession  stands  thus:  —  C.  Sentius  Saturninus  became  president  B.C.  9;  P. 
Quinctilius  Varus,  B.C.  G;  P.  Sulpicius  Quirinius,  B.C.  4;  M.  Lollius,  B.C. 
1  ;  C.  Marcius  Censorinus  (mentioned  by  Velleius  as  for  a  short  time  after 
Lollius,  who  killed  himself,  rector  of  C.  Cresar  and  governor  of  Syria,)  A.  D. 
3;  L.  Volusius  Saturninus,  A.  D.  4;  P.  Sul.  Quirinius,  A.  D.  6,  etc. 


516  APPENDIX. 

things  that  make  it  reasonably  probable.  It  should  also  be 
noted,  that  while  the  Evangelist  says  that  the  census  was 
taken  while  Quir.  was  governor  of  Syria,  he  does  not  affirm 
it  to  have  been  personally  conducted  by  him  in  Judea.  It 
merely  happened  to  be  coeval  with  his  Syrian  presidency,  and 
formed  a  first  census,  as  contradistinguished  from  a  second. 
St.  Luke  being  himself  a  native  of  Syria,  and  very  probably 
writing  to  a  Syrian,  quite  naturally  indicated  the  name  of 
the  governor  presiding  at  the  time  over  the  region,  and  the 
relation  of  this  census  to  another,  with  which  the  governor 
was  known  to  be  officially  connected. 

In  regard  to  the  d-oypayij  itself,  it  is  impossible  to  arrive 
at  any  very  definite  conclusion.  The  word  strictly  means  an 
enrolling,  though  very  commonly  an  enrolment  with  a  view 
to  taxing — taking  an  account  of  men's  persons  and  goods  for 
the  purpose  of  laying  on  them  an  equitable  proportion  of  the 
public  burdens ;  and  hence  it  might  often  with  propriety  be 
rendered  by  our  word  taxing.  But,  undoubtedly,  there  were 
cases  in  which  this  term  would  be  too  specific ;  in  which,  at 
least,  the  immediate  act  was  not  directly  associated  with  any 
pecuniary  rating.  Those  who,  with  Lardner,  would  regard 
the  Evangelist  as  writing. of  the  whole  world  in  the  restricted 
sense — that  is,  as  embracing  merely  the  districts  more  imme 
diately  in  his  eye,  the  provinces  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
Herod — think  they  discover  a  probable  account  of  the  trans 
action  in  certain  notices  of  Josephus  respecting  the  latter 
days  of  Herod's  reign.  In  the  Ant.  xvi.  9,  3,  10,  9,  it  is 
stated  that  Herod  toward  the  close  of  his  life,  "lost  the  Em 
peror's  favour,  and  was  forced  to  submit  to  many  disgraces 
and  affronts;"  in  consequence  of  which  he  sent  an  ambassa 
dor  to  Rome,  who  succeeded,  though  not  without  difficulty, 
in  explaining  matters  and  effecting  a  reconciliation.  Further, 
in  Ant.  xvii,  2,  6,  the  historian  having  mentioned  the  Pha 
risees  as  a  powerful  and  subtle  party,  ready  to  attempt  any 
thing  against  those  who  were  obnoxious  to  them,  adds,  "When, 
therefore,  the  whole  Jewish  nation  took  an  oath  to  be  faithful 
to  Coesar  and  the  interests  of  the  king,  these  men  to  the  num 
ber  of  above  6000,  refused  to  swear."  He  proceeds  to  men- 


PRESIDENCY  OF  CYRENIUS,  LUKE  II.  2.  51T 

tion,  that  for  this  act  of  contumacy  they  were  fined  by  He 
rod,  while,  on  their  part,  they  declared  that  God  had  decreed 
to  put  an  end  to  the  government  of  Herod  and  his  race. 
This  came  to  the  ears  of  Herod,  and  proved  the  occasion  of 
death  to  not  a  few  of  their  number.  Now,  it  is  supposed  that 
the  oath  of  fidelity  here  spoken  of  as  having  been  exacted 
towards  Csesar  and  the  interests  of  Herod,  might  be  identical 
with  the  enrolment  or  census  of  St.  Luke;  the  rather  so,  as 
the  time  must  have  been  nearly  the  same  in  both  cases,  and 
the  national  expectation  of  another  king  than  Herod,  or  any 
that  could  spring  from  his  family,  did  then  also  assume  a  very 
definite  and  specific  form. 

Whatever  truth,  however,  there  may  be  in  all  this,  as  re 
gards  Herod  and  the  people  of  his  dominions,  it  must  be 
owned  that  it  scarcely  meets  the  conditions  of  the  historical 
statement  presented  by  the  Evangelist.  In  the  account  of 
the  Jewish  historian  the  matter  seems  to  lie  between  Herod 
and  his  people,  and  to  be  altogether  of  local  interest;  while 
with  the  Evangelist  it  is  the  decree  of  the  Emperor — oof/ia 
xapa  Kalffapoz  AbfO'jcrTou — which  alone  comes  into  notice ;  and 
the  object  of  this  is  represented  in  the  most  general  terms,  as 
ordering  an  enrolment  for  the  whole  world,  xaffav  rty  oexov- 
pivyv.  Of  course,  not  absolutely  the  whole ;  the  words  must 
in  any  case  be  understood  with  some  limitation ;  for  wide  as  the 
Roman  empire  was,  there  still  were,  in  the  age  of  Augustus,  re 
gions  of  considerable  extent  and  ample  resources,  respecting 
which  he  would  never  have  dreamt  of  issuing  a  decree  of  the 
kind  here  specified.  We  are  constrained  to  think,  at  the  very 
utmost,  of  a  universality  co-extensive  with  Caesar's  acknow 
ledged  supremacy:  but  to  that,  both  the  words  themselves 
and  the  connexion  in  which  they  stand,  seem  most  naturally 
to  point.  There  is  some  reason  to  believe,  as  Mr.  Greswell 
has  shown  (Harmony,  vol.  i.,  p.  536  sq.,)  that  Augustus  did 
take  measures  for  effecting,  not  merely  partial  censuses — of 
which  various  are  incidentally  noticed  by  the  ancient  histo 
rians — but  also  surveys  of  a  more  general  kind.  There  ap 
pears,  for  example,  to  have  been  made  in  his  reign  a  general 
geometrical  survey  of  the  empire,  which,  though  not  men- 
44 


518  APPENDIX. 

tioned  by  any  historian  extant,  is  yet  explicitly  referred  to 
by  several  writers,  especially  by  such  as  treat  of  rural  affairs. 
Thus  Frontinus  de  Coloniis  says,  Huic  addenda  sunt  men- 
surge  liraitum  et  terminorum  ex  libris  Augusti  et  Neronis  Cae- 
sarum ;  and  speaks  further  of  a  surveyor  Balbus,  qui  tempo- 
ribus  Augusti  omnium  provinciarum  et  civitatum  formas  et 
mensuras  compertas  in  commentarios  contulit,  et  legent  Agra- 
riam  per  universitatein  provinciarum  distinxit  ac  declaravit. 
Various  other  authorities  are  cited  by  Mr.  Greswell  to  the 
same  effect.  And  it  certainly  can  be  regarded  as  by  no 
means  unlikely,  that  along  with  a  general  measurement  of 
the  empire,  Augustus  should  have  sought  to  obtain  a  general 
census  of  its  inhabitants.  The  one  could  scarcely  fail  to  seem 
the  proper  complement  of  the  other.  And  it  is  also  known 
that  Augustus  left  behind  him  what  is  called  breviarium  impe 
ril  (Tac.  Ann.  i.  11 ;  Suet.  Aug.  c.  102 ;  Dio,  Ivi.  33,)  which  it 
took  many  years  to  complete,  and  which  would  in  all  proba 
bility  be  based  to  some  extent  on  returns  regarding  the  popu 
lation  of  the  empire.  But  the  accounts  we  have  of  it  are  brief, 
and  the  history,  in  particular,  of  Dio,  appears  to  be  defective 
in  respect  to  this  period. 

Supposing  such  a  measure  to  have  been  prosecuted  by 
Augustus,  there  is  no  need  for  imagining  that  the  decree  or 
dering  the  returns  must  have  been  issued  for  the  whole  em 
pire  at  once,  and  appointed  to  be  carried  out  simultaneously 
throughout  all  the  provinces.  It  would  be  more  likely  to  be 
carried  into  effect  piecemeal;  although,  when  speaking  of  it 
in  connexion  with  any  particular  province,  a  writer  of  the  pe 
riod  would  naturally  connect  the  special  work  in  his  region  of 
the  empire  with  the  decree  of  the  Emperor  ordering  its  ge 
neral  accomplishment.  So  the  Evangelist  may  be  conceived 
to  have  done.  And  it  tends  still  further  to  confirm  this  view 
of  the  nature  and  design  of  the  census  here  spoken  of,  that 
the  very  mode  of  taking  it  seems  to  indicate  a  specific  diffe 
rence  between  it  and  the  census  afterwards  taken  by  Quiri- 
nius,  when  Judca  was  formally  annexed  to  Syria.  Of  the 
latter  it  is  said,  that  the  express  design  of  it  was  to  take  an 
account  of  the  people's  substance ;  and  Quir.  himself  is  desig- 


PRESIDENCY  OF  CYRENIU8,  LUKE  II.  2.  519 

nated  an  appraiser  of  their  means — reij^rr^  r&v  obauov  (Ant. 
xviii.  1.)  Had  the  first  census  been  of  this  description,  there 
could  have  been  no  need  for  so  early  a  renewal  of  it.  And, 
besides,  the  circumstances  noted  by  the  Evangelist  in  regard 
to  the  holy  family,  seetn  to  indicate  that  other  things  than 
property  were  in  question ;  since,  instead  of  being  enrolled 
where  their  dwelling  and  substance  (if  they  had  any)  existed, 
they  repaired  to  what  was  reckoned  their  own  city — theirs,  it 
would  appear,  only  by  genealogical  descent  and  personal 
claims;  for,  if  any  property  had  belonged  to  them  there, 
they  should  not  have  been  obliged  to  lodge  in  the  mere  out 
houses  of  the  inn.  Such  things  seem  best  to  accord  with  a 
census  of  persons  merely,  apart  from  the  valuation  of  their 
property. 

Finally,  as  to  the  relation  of  the  census  to  the  Syrian  pre 
sidency,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  accounts  both  of 
the  census  itself,  and  the  Syrian  presidents  at  this  time,  are 
extremely  brief  and  indistinct.  As  it  was  about  the  very  time 
of  our  Lord's  birth,  that  Quir.  appears  to  have  taken  the  place 
of  Varus,  one  can  quite  easily  conceive,  that  the  enrolling  may 
have  partly  fallen  under  the  one  administration,  and  partly 
under  the  other.  It  is  also  quite  conceivable  and  even  pro 
bable,  that,  as  the  appointment  of  Quir.  seems  to  have  been 
made  (according  to  the  notice  of  Tacitus)  for  the  more  imme 
diate  purpose  of  bringing  into  subjection  the  Homonadenses  in 
the  western  and  less  accessible  parts  of  the  province,  Yarus, 
his  predecessor,  may  have  been  ordered  to  remain  for  some 
time  in  the  east,  till  Quir.  was  at  liberty  to  enter  on  the  re 
gular  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  province.  These  are 
quite  natural  suppositions  in  the  circumstances;  and  they  may 
sufficiently  account  for  the  mention  made  by  Josephus  of  Va 
rus  in  Ant.  xvii.  9,  3,  as  being  still  president  of  Syria,  shortly 
after  Herod's  death.  He  may  have  been  so,  in  point  of* fact, 
as  regards  the  eastern  part  of  the  province,  although  not 
strictly  the  president  of  Syria  at  the  time.  But  the  notices 
are  so  partial  and  incomplete,  that  it  is  impossible  to  exhibit 
more  than  a  probable  view  of  the  circumstances  of  the  period. 
From  what  has  been  established,  there  is  valid  ground  for  as- 


520  APPENDIX. 

serting,  that  it  is  not  our  Evangelist  who  has  reason  to  fear 
the  fullest  inquiry,  and  that  the  more  the  actual  relations  of 
the  time  are  known,  the  more  patent  and  conclusive  should  be 
the  proof  of  his  historical  accuracy. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Paga. 

A 

Accommodation  ih  interpreta 
tions  of  Scripture,  the  false,  lOGsq. 

Accommodation  in  interpreta 
tions  of  Scripture,  the  true.:..  113 

Africanus,  Julius,  his  explanation 
of  the  two  genealogies 200,  209 

Analogy  of  the  faith,  respect  due 
to 122 

Angel  of  the  Covenant, 231 

Angels,  designations  and  doctrine 
of 225 

Angels,  import  of  the  general  term  226 


B 


Page. 


Baptism,  why  done  by  threefold 
immersion 295 

Baptism,  wheth  er  administered  to 
Jewish  proselytes 304 

Baptism,  symbolical  import  of...  306 

Bathings  among  Greeks  and  Ro 
mans  302 

Bezu's  view  of  New  Testament 
Greek 25,  31 

Beza's  name  defended  against  Dr. 
Campbell 86 

Blood,  pouring  out  of 44 


Angels  of  the  Seven  Churches....  227    Boys,   his  Key  to   the  Book  of 


Angels,  Jewishnotions concerning  230 
Angels,  past  and  present  state  of  231  j 
Angels,  their  proper  function  and 

employment 242 

Angels,  whether  guardians  of  par 
ticular  persons  and  kingdoms  245  ! 
Angels,  the  fallen,  their  state  and 

prospects 253  ! 

Anointing  with  oil,  its  symbolical 

import 266 

Antichrist,  in  St.  John's  Epistles  280 
Antichrist,  in  Cyprian  and  the 

Fathers 286-8 

Aramaic  forms  and  idioms  in  New 

Testament , 21 

Archangel,  Scriptural  application 

of  the  name 240 

Armstrong,  Dr.,  his  doctrine  of 

baptisms 299 

Augustine  on  the  rule  of  faith...   123 
Augustine  on  the  relation  of  the 

Old  Testament  to  the  New 146 

Augustine,  his  hermeneutical  work, 

de  doc.  Christiana 159 

Augustine  on  the  wisdom  of  ser- 

pents 171 

Augustine  on  the  relation  of  Christ 

to  the  house  of  David 210 


Psalms 203 


Cainan,  whether  the  name  should 
be  twice  in  Luke's  genealogical 
table 

Caleb,  most  probably  a  Gentile 
by  birth 

Campbell,  Dr.,  his  undue  censure 
of Beza 

Campbell,  Dr.,  his  extreme  views 


222 
219 
86 
102 


on  the  etymology  of  words 

Campbell,  Dr.,  on  the  Analogy  of 
the  faith 125 

Campbell,  Dr.,  <-n  the  use  of  the 
article  before  Christ 265 

Campbell,  Dr.,  on  the  title,  Son 
of  Man 271 

Campbell,  Dr.,  on  certain  baptis 
mal  expressions 300-3 

Christ,  names  of,  in  New  Testa 
ment 257 

Christians,  origin  and  meaning 
of  the  name 267 

Circumcision,  its  symbolical  im 
port  and  sacramental  design...  149 

Cyrenius,  when  first  governor  of 
Syria 504 


44* 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Page. 
D 
Delitzscli    on   the    genealogy  of 

Christ 213 

Diodati  Doniinici.  his  work  on  the 
original  language  of  the  JSew 
Testament 15 

E 

Egypt,  the  tenacity  of  its  ancient 
language 1C 

England,  the  resistance  it  gave  to 
the  introduction  of  Norman 
French 17 

Erasmus,  his  view  of  the  charac 
ter  of  New  Testament  Greek...  25 

Ernestion  the  analogy  of  the  faith  124 

Ernesti  on  the  words  of  institution 
at  the  Lord's  Supper 165 

Etymology,  the  respect  to  be  paid 
to  it 93 


Fathers,  their  uses  and  defects  as 
interpreters  of  Scripture 74 

Fig-trees,  as  spoken  of  by  some 
Kabbius 68 

Flacius  Illy  ricus,  his  Clavis  Scrip 
ture  85 

Forbes,  Dr.,  on  Scripture  paral 
lelism 203 

Fuller,  Thos. ,  his  grotesque  appli 
cation  of  Scripture  metaphors  170 


Gabriel,  the  name  and  its  appli 
cation  236 

Gale,  Dr.,  on  baptism 297 

Genealogies  of  Christ  in  the  Gos 
pels  205 

Genealogies,  principle  on  which 
they  were  constructed 215 

God,  His  moral  character,  a  fun 
damental  and  pervading  cha 
racter  in  Old  Testament  insti 
tutions 150 

Grammatical  sense  of  Scripture, 
importance  of  ascertaining  it..  83 

Greek  of  New  Testament  different 
from  the  purely  classical 25 

Greek  of  N.  T.,  lexical  peculiari 
ties  belonging  to  it 33 

Greek  of  N.  T.,  grammatical  pe 
culiarities 35 

Greek  of  N.  T.,  its  Hebraistic  im 
press 37 

Grotius  on  the  principle  of  the 
two  genealogies 217 


H 

Hades,  import  and  use  of 315 

Hades,   among  the  Greeks  and 

Romans 315 

Hades,  among  the  Hebrews 317 

Hagenbach  on  the  qualilications 

of  an  interpreter  of  Scripture     82 
Heathen  religion,  the  relation  of 

New  Testament  Scripture  to  it  137 
Hebraisms  not  so  frequent  in  the 
New  Testament  as  often  repre 
sented 46 

Heringa  on  the  subject  of  accom 
modation  112 

Hervey,  Lord  A.,  on  the  genealo 
gies 218 

Higden,  Ral.  on  Norman  French     17 
Horsley,    Bishop,    his   tendency 
to    extremes    in   etymological 

senses 101 

House,  its  tropical  meanings 169 

Humboldt,  William,  on  language     55 


Jacob,  peculiarity  in  his  genealo 
gical  table 216 

Jebb,  Bishop,  on  parallelisms....   194 

Jebb,  Bishop,  on  Matt.  vii.  6....  201 

Jesus  Christ,  His  sparing  use  of 
these  names  Himself 270 

Jesus  Christ,  why  He  commonly 
called  Himself  Son  of  Man....  271 

Jesus  Christ,  evidence  of  His 
claim  to  be  reckoned  Son  of 
David 207 

Jews,  their  language  in  time  of 
Josephus 19 

Josephus,  relation  of  his  writings 
to  those  of  the  New  Testament  64 

Israel,  as  children  of  the  cove 
nant,  a  spiritual  seed... 151 

Israel,  not  placed  by  God  in  anta 
gonism  to  the  Gentiles 151 

Judas,  Ids  character  and  relation 
to  Christ 3C.9,  483 

Judaistic  spirit,  its  early  mani 
festation 141 

K 

Kingdom  of  God,  meaning  of  the 
expression 56 

Kohlbriigge  on  the  term  Old  Tes 
tament 341 

L 

Labourers  in  vineyard,  parable  of  184 
Language  of  the  New  Testament     13 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


528 


Page. 
Layard,  his  remarks  on  Eastern 

genealogies 118 

Leighton,  Archbishop,  as  an  in 
terpreter 100 

Limbus  Patrum,  what? 330 

Lisco  on  the  parables 183 

Lowth,  Bishop,  on  parallelisms..  189 

M 
Macedonian  conquest,  its  effects 

on  the  Greek  }anguage 32 

Mashal,  import  of  the  Hebrew 

term 475 

Melancthon  on  Scripture  inter 
pretations 13,  85 

Messiah,  import  and  use  of  the 

name 258 

Michaelis  on  Hebraisms  in  New 

Testament 48 

Michaelis  on  the  writings  of  Jo- 

sephus 64 

Michael,  import  and  application 

of  the  name  in  Scripture 233 

N 

Names,  significance  of,  in  Scrip 
ture 45 

Nazarite,  reason  of  his  long  hair  251 
Neander,  his  deep  sense  of  the  im 
portance  of  the  moral  element 
in  an  interpreter 83 

0 

Old  Testament  Scripture,  mode 
of  dealing  with,  in  the  New....  Ill 

Old  Testament  Scripture  wor 
ship,  spiritual  element  in  134,  148 

Old  Testament  Scripture,  only  re 
lative  difference  between  it, 
and  that  of  the  New 154 

Old  Testament  Scripture,  quota 
tions  from,  in  the  New 390  sq. 

Olshausen,  his  view  of  Antichrist  291 


Parables  of  JesusChrist,  and  their 
interpretation 173 

Parables,  why  our  Lord  used  so 
much  this  style  of  discourse  174,  477 

Parable  of*  prodigal  son  misinter 
preted 187 

Parallelism  in  New  Testament 
Scripture 189 

Parallelism,  its  appropriateness  as 
a  measure  for  inspired  strains  192 

Passover,  eating  of,  how  to  be 
understood 378 


Pacre. 

Passover,  time  of  our  Lord's  last  379 
Paulus,  Dr.,  his  character  as  an 

interpreter 81 

Philo,  the  relation  of  his  writings 

to  the  New  Testament 62 

Pillar,  its  tropical  meanings 169 

Prepositions  in  New  Testament 

often  arbitrarily  dealt  with....  50 
Prepositions,  peculiar  usages  of, 

by  Hebrews  and  Greeks 117 

Prophets,  false,  who  meant  by...  275 
Prophets,  false,  the  regard  paid 

to  such  among  the  Romans  in 

later  times 276 

Q 
Quotations  from  Old  Testament 

in  the  New 390  sq. 

Quotations,  the  bearing  of  them 

on  the  subject  of  inspiration...  453 
Quotations,  their  relation  to  the 

Septuagint 455 

Quirinius — see  under  Cyrenius. 

R 

Rabbinical  writings,  their  proper 
use 67 

Reformers,  their  hermeneutical 
principles 85 

Regeneration,  its  meaning  and 
place 355 

Repentance,  its  meaning  and  place  352 

Resurrection  of  Christ,  promi 
nence  given  to  it  by  Paul 493 

Rosenmuller  on  accommodation  110 

S 

Schneckenburger  on  Jewish  bap 
tism 305 

Scholefield,  Professor,  on  the  Eng 
lish  Version  of  Scripture 47 

Scholefield,  Professor,  on  Heb. 
ix.  15 346 

Seiler  on  accommodation 110 

Semler  on  accommodation 109 

Sheol,  import  of.  317 

Sheol,  difference  between  the  re 
presentations  of,  and  those  in 
New  Testament  Scripture 320 

Simplicity,  as  a  characteristic  of 
the  New  Testament 90 

Socinians,  their  arbitrariness  as 
interpreters  of  Scripture 87 

Son  of  Mt.n,  why  appropriated 
by  Christ 270 

Stephen's  speech,  explanation  of 
peculiarities  in  it 119 


524 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Page. 

Stephens,  Robt.,  his  view  of  New 
Testament  Greek 2G 

Sycophant,  etymology  of 94 

Symbolical  element  in  Old  Testa 
ment  worship 148 

Sympathy  with  sacred  writers, 
how  necessary  for  interpreters  79 


Talmuds,  when  probably  com 
posed G6 

Talmuds,  their  misuse  in  inter 
pretations  of  the  New  Testa 
ment 67 

Tares,  explanation  of,  in  the  pa 
rable 181 

Teachers,  false,  who  meant  by  the 
term 279 

Testaments,  or  wills,  unknown 
among  the  Jews 340 

Tiersch  on  the  Septuagint  Version     61 

Titmann  on  the  Hebraisms  of  the 
New  Testament 47 

Tooke  (Home,)  his  views  on  lan 
guage  96 

Transubstantiation  not  justified 
by  the  words  of  Christ,  rightly 
interpreted 165 


Page. 

Trench,  Dean,  his  remarks  on 
certain  words 96 

Trench,  Dean,  on  parabolical  re 
presentations 175 

Trench,  Dean,  on  Antichrist 292 

Tropical  parts  of  the  New  Testa 
ment,  and  their  interpretation  157 

U 

Usage,  importance  of  attending 
to,  in  the  interpretation  of 
words 93 


Vulgate,  Latin,  some  of  its  im 
perfections  as  a  translation....  43 

Vulgate,  Latin,  its  value,  and  that 
of  other  early  versions  in  inter 
pretations  70 

W 

Wetstein,  his  treatise  on  accom 
modation 108 

Winer  on  New  Testament  idioms     49 
Women,  why  required  to  use  vails  250 


Zumpt,  A.  W.,  on  the  Presidents 
of  Syria 507 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS  ILLUSTRATED. 


Page. 

Page 

Page. 

Exod.  iii.  6,      .         481 

Jer.  xviii.  xix.  .         484 

Matt.  xii.  17-21,       400 

xii.  46,  .         488 

xxiii.  5,      .         258 

xiii.  11-13,      178 

Num.  xix.  13,  19,     298 

xxxi.  15,    .         470 

xiii.  14,  15,      402 

Psalm  viii.  2,     .         407 

xxxi.  31-34,       446 

xiii.  35,  403,  475 

viii.  4-6,  443,  500 

Dan.  ix.  25,      .         259 

xv.  4,      .         403 

xvi.  8-16,        419 

x.  5,  6,     .         235 

xv.  8,  9,  .         404 

xxiv.  3,  4,       194 

x.  13,        .         234 

xvi.  18,    126,  324 

xl.  6-8,  .447,503 

Hosea  xi.  1,       .        466 

xvii.  11,  .         353 

xlii.  10,  .         117 

Amosix.  11,  12,        423 

xviii.  10,          247 

Ixix.    22,  23, 

Mi  cak  v.  2,        .         394 

xix.  28,  .         363 

432,  496 

Hab.  i.  5,          .        422 

xix.  4,  5.         404 

Ixix.  25,  418,491 

ii.  4,         425,  495 

xxi.  5,     .         405 

Ixxviii.  2,  403,475 

iii.  13,      .         261 

xxi.  13,  .         406 

xcvii.  7,  .         498 

Zech.iii..8,        .         258 

xxi.  42,  407,  478 

cii.  25-27,       499 

vi.  12,      .         258 

xxii.  32,  407,  481 

civ.  4,     .         226 

ix.  9,       .         405 

xxii.  37,  .         408 

cv.  15,    .         261 

xi.  13,      409,  482 

xxiii.  14,          169 

cxviii.  22,23,  478 

xii.  10,     .         490 

xxiv.  22,            43 

cxxxv.  15-18,196    Malachi  iii.  1,   226,400 

xxvi.  31,          408 

Prov.  iii.  11,  12,        448 

Matt.  i.  23,        393,  456 

xxvi.  64,          274 

xxv.  21,  22,     127 

ii.  3,         .         264 

xxvii.    9,    10, 

Cant.  vi.  10,      .         171 

ii.  6,         .         394 

.409,     .         482 

Eccles.  v.  4-6,   227,  250 

ii.7,         .         493 

xxvii.  46,         410 

Isaiah  vi,  9,  10,  .         402 

ii.  15,       395,  466 

Marki.  2,  3,      411,487 

vii.  14,    .         456 

ii.  18,       395,  470 

iv.  12,      .         411 

viii.  17,  18,     502 

ii.  23,      .  51,  396 

vii.  3,  4,  8,       300 

ix.  1,  2,  .         398 

iii.  3,       .         396 

xii.  29,  30,       412 

x.  22,  23,        428 

iv.  4,       .         397 

xv.  28,     .         412 

xi.  1,       .         258 

iv.  6,       .         397 

Luke  i.  4,          .         100 

xi.  10;     .         435 

iv.  7,       .        397 

i.  37,       .          48 

xxviii.  16,       429 

iv.  10,  14,        398 

ii.  2,         .         504 

xxix.  13,         404 

v.  29,      .          37 

ii.  11,       .         262 

xlii.  1-4,         400 

vii.  6,      .         201 

ii.  15,       .           48 

xlv.  1,    .         261 

viii.  17,    399,  473 

ii.  24,       .         413 

liii.  4,     .399,473 

ix.  13,     .         399 

iii.  4-6,    .         413 

Iv.  3,       .         492 

x.  16,       .         171 

iii.  16,     .         303 

lix.  20,  21,      433 

xi.  10,     .         400 

iii.  23,     .         211 

Ixi.  1,  2,  .         414 

xi.  23,     .         323  , 

iii.  36,     .         222 

526 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS  ILLUSTRATED. 


Pao;e. 

P  age. 

Pa-re. 

Luke  iv.  17-19,        414 

Rom.iv.  18,      .         426 

Gal.vi.  2,          .           97 

xi.  88,     .         301 

vi.  3,  4,    .         310 

Ephes.  iii.  19,  .           53 

xxiii.42,  .           52 

viii.  23,    .         364 

iv.  8,     .         441 

xxiii.43,  .         325 

ix.  15,     .           98 

iv.  9,     .         332 

xxiii.46,  .         41G 

ix.  25,      .         427 

iv.  26,  .         170 

John  i.  16,         .         283 

ix.26,     .         427 

v.  14,    .         442 

i.  18,        .           51 

ix.  27,  28,        428 

v.  21,  .          266 

iii.  1-8,    .         356 

ix.  29,     .         428 

v.  25,  26,       309 

iii.  13,      .         274 

ix.  33,      .         429 

Philip,  ii.  10,     .          53 

iv.  25,       .         262 

x.  6-8,     .        430 

Col  os.  ii.  12,'  13,        310 

v.  27,        .         274 

x.  20;  21,         431 

2  Thess.  ii.3-10,       288 

vi.  31,       .         416 

xi.  2,        .         102 

2  Tim.  ii.  19,     103,  442 

vi.  45,       .         416 

xi.  8,        .         431 

Titus  iii.  5,        .         357 

vi.  53,       .         164 

xi.  9,  10,  432,496 

Heb.  i.  G,           443,  497 

xii.  14,  15,        417 

xi.  26,  27,         433 

i.  7,           226,  443 

xii.  38,     .         417 

xii.  1,       .         132 

i.  10-12,  443,  499 

xiii.1-17,  311,372 

xii.  19,20,108,434 

ii.  6-8,       444,  500 

xiii.  18,    .        417 

xiv.  11,    .         434 

ii.  12,  13,445,  502 

xv.  25,     .         417 

xv.  10,'    .         435 

iii.  7-11,  .         445 

xviii.  28,  .         376 

xv.  12,     .         435 

viii.  2,       .         130 

xix.  36,    418,  488 

1  Cor.  i.  19,      .         436 

viii.  8-12,          446 

xix.  37,     418,490 

i.  29,      .           43 

ix.  15-17,         344 

Acts  i.  6,         .        366 

ii.  9,       .         436 

ix.  20,      .         447 

i.  20,        418,  491 

iii.  13,    .         164 

x.  5-7,      447,  503 

ii.  16-21,          419 

iii.  19,  20,       437 

xi.  21,      .         448 

ii.  25-28,          419 

iv.21,     .         117 

xii.  5,  6,  .         448 

ii.  27,      .  86,  325 

x.  2,        .         309 

James  iv.  5,      .         450 

iii.  19,  20,        366 

xi.  10,    .         250 

iv.  6,      .         450 

iii.  22,     .         420 

xiv.  21,  .         438 

1  Peter  iii.  18-20,     333 

iii.  25,     .         421 

xv.  54,    .  48,  438 

iii.  20,  21,     310 

iv.  27.     .         265 

xv.  55,    .         326 

2  Peter  i.  3,      .           53 

vii.  15,  16,       119 

2  Cor.  i.  21,       .         266 

i.  5,      .           53 

viii.  40,    .           51 

iii.  14,    .         341 

i.  5-7,  .         117 

x.  38,      .         265 

vi.  16,     .         438 

1  John  ii.  18,    .         284 

xii.  7,      .         249 

vi.  17,  18,       439 

ii.  19,  .           43 

xiii.  33,    422,  492 

viii.  15,  .         440 

iv.  1,     .         278 

xiii.  34,    422,  492 

xii.  9,     .           99 

v.  3,      .           36 

xiii.  40,  41,      422 

Gal.  ii.  2.           .           89 

Rev.  i.  13,         .         270 

xv.  16,  17,       423 

iii.  8,          .         440 

i.  18.         .         327 

xvii.2'2,  .         138 

iii.  10,        .         440 

ii.  14,        .           52 

xxv.  19,  .         138 

iii.  13,        .         440 

iii.  12,       .         169 

Rom.  i.  17,         425,  495 

iii.  16,        441,497 

vi.8,         .         327 

iv.  3.        .         426 

iii.  19,        .         152 

xii.  7-9,   .         236 

iv.  6,  7,    .        426 

iv.  30,        .         441 

xiii.  10,    .         117 

THE    END. 


VALUABLE  BOOKS 


PUBLISHED  AXD  TOR  SALE  BY 

SMITH,    ENGLISH   &    Co., 

NO.  40  N.  SIXTH  STREET, 

PHILADELPHIA. 


THOLUCK'S  COMMENTARY  ON  JOHN. 

(To  be  published,  March  1st.) 

COMMENTARY  ON  THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN.  BY  DR.  A.  TIIOLUCK. 
TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN,  BY  CHARLES  P.  KRAUTII, 
D.  1).,  PITTSBURGH,  PA.  8vo.;  CLOTH. 

The  first  edition  of  this  Commentary,  which  may  now  be  considered  a  classic  in  its  depart 
ment,  appeared  in  1827,  and  was  followed  by  a  second  in  the  next  year,  and  by  a  third  in 
1831.  The  fourth  Edition,  which  appeared  in  1833,  found  a  translator  in  Itev.  A.  Kaufman. 
(Boston:  Perkins  &  Marvin,  183(3.)  Though  the  translation  was  severely  criticised,  yet  the 
hearty  reception  giren  it  by  students  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  extensive  use  made  of 
it  by  lea  ling  Theological  writers  in  this  country  and  in  England,  show,  that  with  all  its 
drawbacks,  it  was  regarded  as  an  aid  of  the  highest  value  in  the  interpretation  of  John.  A 
fifth  Edition  of  the  original  was  issued  the  year  after  the  appearance  of  this  translation. 

All  these  editions  were  essentially  the  same.  The  changes  were  not  radical — and  the  im 
provements  were  not  such  as  to  affect  the  identity  of  the  work.  But  between  the  appearance 
of  the  fifth  Edition  (1837)  and  of  the  sixth,  (1844)  a  revolution  in  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels 
had  taken  place.  The  works  of  Strauss,  and  of  kindred  writers,  and  the  masterly  vindications 
by  Aeander  and  othtrs  which  they  called  forth — and  the  appearance  of  an  extraordinary 
number  of  books  of  high  merit,  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  .John,  had  made  it  necessary 
that  the  sixth  Edition  should  be  newly  elaborated  from  beginning  to  end.  Not  only  did 
Tholuck  perform  this  labour  thoroughly,  but  he  enriched  his  work  by  new  researches  in  neg 
lected  portions  of  the  ancient  mines,  so  as  to  make  it  ampler  as  a  storehouse  of 'the  old,  even 
while  he  was  storing  it  with  fresh  treasures  of  the  new.  Though  much  of  the  mutter  of  the 
other  editions  was  dropped — and  what  was  retained  was  compressed  as  far  as  possible,  yet  the 
new  Edition  embraced  nearly  fifty  pages  more  than  the  latest  of  the  old. 

Finally,  toward  the  close  of  1857,  a  seventh  Edition  appeared.  In  addition  to  the  use  of 
the  most  recent  writers,  the  miscellaneous  works  of  Origen,  together  with  the  writings  of 
some  of  the  Greek  fathers,  and  the  works  of  the  Theologians  of  the  Reformation,  and  of  the 
period  immediately  following  it,  have  been  either  used  for  the  first  time  or  drawn  upon  more 
freely.  The  doctrinal  passages  have  been  more  fully  discussed.  On  the  critical  questions — 
including  that  of  the  Passover— the  position  of  the  sixth  Edition  is  retained  without  a 
change. 

The  Commentary  of  Tholuck  is  comprehensive  and  thorough,  yet  compact.  It  presents  a 
great  deal  in  a  comparatively  small  compass,  and  is  therefore  a  manual.  The  selectest  thoughts 
of  Fathers,  of  Reformers,  and  of  recent  writers  are  brought  together,  and  combined  with  what 
has  been  furnished  by  the  auth<  r  himself.  Genius,  culture,  piety  in  affinity  with  that  of 
John,  are  his  characteristics;  arid  his  work,  whether  in  the  hands  of  the  learner,  or  of  the  . 
scholar,  of  the  intelligent  lay  student  of  the  Bible,  of  the  pastor,  or  of  the  theologian,  will  be 
found  a  treasure  of  learning,  of  original  thought,  and  of  all  that  ministers  to  the  wants  of  the 
Christian  heart. 

The  translator  offers  to  the  public,  in  connexion  with  the  most  valuable  portions  of  the 
seventh,  a  translation  of  the  sixth  Kdition  of  this  Commentary.  As  the  work  is  one  of  science 
and  not  of  art,  he  has  aimed  at  presenting  the  exact  idea  of  the  author  with  a  faithfulness  to 
which  mere  graces  of  style  are  freely  sacrificed.  The  original  work  has  been  revised,  its  refe 
rences  of  every  kind,  almost  without  exception,  have  been  verified,  and  where  mistakes  have 
been  made  they  have  been  corrected.  As  an  indispensable  aid  to  one  class  of  readers,  and  as 
a  convenieuca  even  to  the  scholar,  the  citations  are  accompanied  with  a  translation. 


BENGEL'S  GNOMON. 

GNOMON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     BY  JOHN  ALBERT  BENGEL. 

The  translation  of  this  valuable  work  is  now  complete  in  five  handsome 
volumes,  octavo.     Price  in  cloth,  $10.00. 


RELIGIOUS  CASES  OF  CONSCIENCE 

Answered  in  an  Evangelical  Manner. 
BY  THE  KEV.  S.  PIKE,  AND  THE  REV.  S.  HAYWAHD. 

New  Edition,  with  an  Introduction  by  the 
REV.     HENRY    A.     B 0 ARD M AN ,    D . D . 

I2mo.  cloth,  $1.00. 


COLES  ON  GOD'S  SOVEREIGNTY. 

PRACTICAL  DISCOURSE  ON  THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  GOD,  WITH  OTHER 
MATERIAL  POINTS  DERIVED  THENCE.  BY  ELISHA  COLES. 
12MO.  Go  CENTS. 


WORKS  OF  DR.  JOHN  OWEN. 

EDITED  BY  REV.  DR.  GOOLD,  EDINBURGH. 

Iii  twenty-four  volumes,  8vo. 
The  Miscellaneous  Works,  16  vols.,  $24.00. 

The  Theologoumena  and  Exposition  of  the  Hebrews,  8  vols.,  $12.00. 
The  Whole  Works,  complete  in  24  vols.,  $36.00. 


CLARK'S  FOREIGN  THEOLOGICAL  LIBRARY. 

COMPRISING 

Hengstenberg's  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament,  4  vols. 

Stier  on  the  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  8  vols. 

Keil's  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Joshua. 

Keil  and  Bertheau  on  Kings  and  Chronicles,  2  vols. 

Hengstenberg's  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  3  vols. 

do  do  Revelation  of  St.  John,  2  vols. 

Gieseler's  Compendium  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  5  vols. 
Hageubach's  Compendium  of  the  History  of  Doctrines,  2  vols. 
Baumgarton's  Apostolic  History,  3  vols. 
Ullmann's  lleformers  before  the  Reformation,  2  vols. 
Muller  on  the  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  2  vols.,  &c.  &c. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

2 

BRARY 

. 

MAY  2  9  1967 


w~ 


LD  21A-60m-7,'66 
(G4427slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


